Down in the states, they've created an educational program called "KIPP" (Knowledge is Power Program) and Margaret Wente wants you to know how wonderful it is.
She tells us that "Nearly 80 per cent of KIPP alumni - who are overwhelmingly black and Hispanic - go to college." Now I'll grant that getting 80% of a minority population in the United States in to post secondary education would be a wonderful achievement.
Unfortunately, KIPP does not come close to achieving this. What KIPP does is first weed out 40% of its population, preventing them from being "alumni" of KIPP. Of the 60% that remain, 80% go on to college or university. 80% of 60% is actually 48%. So it would be more accurate to say that "slightly less than half of KIPP students go to college or university".
On the good side, students are scoring well on standardizes tests. Margaret dedicates a large chunk of text to a set of claims in this regard. "Almost every KIPP school decisively outperforms its district", she says, failing to add the phrase "on standardized tests". Believe it or not, it's easy to have your school get good marks on standardized tests. You just drop the rest of the curriculum and do nothing but focus on the standardized tests. It's a very typical technique and it's ironically destroying education everywhere.
Now you might wonder why 40% of students drop out and a lot of the teachers "move on, too". That might have something to do with burnout. Students go to school for over 8 hours a day, are given homework every night, classes on alternating Saturdays and 3 weeks of school in the summer. Teachers are on call at all times of day, accessible to students by cellphone.
Of course you're going to do well on standardized tests. But you're also going to burn students out and make them hate learning. No wonder only half of them make it to college or university.
What is good about KIPP? Apparently the KIPP administrators have convinced the parents of their students that discipline is very important. They have created a culture of pro-educational behaviour that has been removed from a lot of other places in North America. If you can actually force students to pay attention, discipline those who don't and have parents who agree to that discipline, you can get a lot further in education. That cultural shift, more than the sweatshop mentality, is undoubtedly what is propelling KIPP students forward.
Yes, KIPP sounds like a wonderful, equalizing education system. But it isn't. It's just a sweatshop that makes children do well on standardized tests.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
Nortel Execs vs Their Severed Employees
With all due apologies to Lyra and Pan.
The former employees of Nortel, robbed by the swindlers who held off their severance pay until the company filed for bankruptcy, are suing the company to prevent it from awarding 29 million dollars worth of "retention bonuses" to members of the executive.
That money, apparently, is needed to retain top talent during the restructuring.
The same top talent that led the company in to the ground? Hard to say, as they aren't saying who exactly is getting how much.
What the executives don't seem to understand is the same thing that the AIG people don't seem to understand. People are angry. People are so angry they're willing to accept pain themselves in order to punish those they believe have hurt them.
These executives, flush with privilege, don't quite understand the situation they're in. People are mad. People are absolutely, raging mad. Their lives have been ruined. Their pensions have been stolen. And the executives want bonuses.
They don't seem to understand that it's not a choice between bonuses withheld or bonuses given. It's a choice between bonuses withheld and eventually, if you follow the mounting anger, pitchforks. It's only a matter of time if they keep this up.
The former employees of Nortel, robbed by the swindlers who held off their severance pay until the company filed for bankruptcy, are suing the company to prevent it from awarding 29 million dollars worth of "retention bonuses" to members of the executive.
That money, apparently, is needed to retain top talent during the restructuring.
The same top talent that led the company in to the ground? Hard to say, as they aren't saying who exactly is getting how much.
What the executives don't seem to understand is the same thing that the AIG people don't seem to understand. People are angry. People are so angry they're willing to accept pain themselves in order to punish those they believe have hurt them.
These executives, flush with privilege, don't quite understand the situation they're in. People are mad. People are absolutely, raging mad. Their lives have been ruined. Their pensions have been stolen. And the executives want bonuses.
They don't seem to understand that it's not a choice between bonuses withheld or bonuses given. It's a choice between bonuses withheld and eventually, if you follow the mounting anger, pitchforks. It's only a matter of time if they keep this up.
Calgary and the Pro-God Ads
This is the one objection I had to the atheist bus campaign. Religion is on the wane. Belief is down in polls. Church attendance is dropping. Religion, ignored, quietly goes away, quietly becomes less dogmatic. Children don't go to church as often as their parents did. People find the old beliefs quirky and silly. The godless slowly win the long race.
Unless you agitate the believers.
So, fine, they have their own ads now.
I'm not sure what religion they're speaking for when they say this. The ads were apparently purchased using the money of a number of people from a number of different faiths ("Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims", the purchaser claims). But I don't believe the statement is accurate.
A cursory reading of the christian bible, for example, states pretty clearly that god doesn't much care for atheists:
Psalm 14:1 Only fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, and their actions are evil; not one of them does good!
Romans 1:32 They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.
Romans 1:28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done.
If this god of theirs "abandoned" us, I have a hard time believing the claim that said entity also "cares for us".
But that's just me, and they'll automatically declare that I'm "interpreting" their bible incorrectly then I point out that it says exactly the opposite of what they want it to say.
What's more to the point is that there will now be a brief agitation of the believers. We can hope that this will leave the fence sitters with more information on the issue so that, the next time a pollster asks, they can say, "No, I don't believe there's a god" and we can start doing away with this notion and god-belief is somehow necessary for moral behaviour.
Unless you agitate the believers.
So, fine, they have their own ads now.
God cares for everyone ... even for those who say He doesn't exist!
I'm not sure what religion they're speaking for when they say this. The ads were apparently purchased using the money of a number of people from a number of different faiths ("Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims", the purchaser claims). But I don't believe the statement is accurate.
A cursory reading of the christian bible, for example, states pretty clearly that god doesn't much care for atheists:
Psalm 14:1 Only fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, and their actions are evil; not one of them does good!
Romans 1:32 They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.
Romans 1:28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done.
If this god of theirs "abandoned" us, I have a hard time believing the claim that said entity also "cares for us".
But that's just me, and they'll automatically declare that I'm "interpreting" their bible incorrectly then I point out that it says exactly the opposite of what they want it to say.
What's more to the point is that there will now be a brief agitation of the believers. We can hope that this will leave the fence sitters with more information on the issue so that, the next time a pollster asks, they can say, "No, I don't believe there's a god" and we can start doing away with this notion and god-belief is somehow necessary for moral behaviour.
Did Wall St. Throw AIG under the Bus?
Think about it.
Wall Street owns most of Congress and most of the Senate. Those investment bankers and brokers, by far, spend the most cash supporting political campaigns. And yet we're seeing Congress running through a bill trashing AIG's bonuses.
It's hard to believe that all of those Congresspeople have forgotten who butters their bread. Is this really a populist, class warfare move? Or is more likely that the people on Wall Street, seeing the seething anger in the population, have decided to direct it, as much as possible, in the direction of someone expendable.
Clearly, if you're in the financial industry and you weren't pulling off various shenanigans, you'd be angry at the AIG types who destroyed and brought in to disrepute your profession. So maybe you tell those Congressional types you own to target AIG. You're happy, because it gets the population off your back. The Congressional types are happy because they're carrying out the vindictiveness of their constituents.
But I can't help but wonder if it's wise. A populist beast, once awakened, doesn't always go back to sleep after a single ravenously eaten meal. The AIG bonuses may just be snack to whet the beast's appetite. Awake now, and aware of its power, the beast can be turned anywhere there's money.
Wall Street owns most of Congress and most of the Senate. Those investment bankers and brokers, by far, spend the most cash supporting political campaigns. And yet we're seeing Congress running through a bill trashing AIG's bonuses.
It's hard to believe that all of those Congresspeople have forgotten who butters their bread. Is this really a populist, class warfare move? Or is more likely that the people on Wall Street, seeing the seething anger in the population, have decided to direct it, as much as possible, in the direction of someone expendable.
Clearly, if you're in the financial industry and you weren't pulling off various shenanigans, you'd be angry at the AIG types who destroyed and brought in to disrepute your profession. So maybe you tell those Congressional types you own to target AIG. You're happy, because it gets the population off your back. The Congressional types are happy because they're carrying out the vindictiveness of their constituents.
But I can't help but wonder if it's wise. A populist beast, once awakened, doesn't always go back to sleep after a single ravenously eaten meal. The AIG bonuses may just be snack to whet the beast's appetite. Awake now, and aware of its power, the beast can be turned anywhere there's money.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
And So It Begins: AIG and Class Warfare
Don't you mistake it for anything else. The people are mad and they're making their government take money from greedy, unethical, rich people and give it to back to the people.
In the old days, this would involve stakes, guillotines, mobs and the like.
Today you just have the government pass a bill putting a punishing tax rate on the people who profited from the destruction of the economy - a destruction they brought about.
It's brilliant. It's precise. It's vindictive.
And that throaty growl you hear from the American populace, conveyed by the 328-93 vote in Congress?
That's just the beginning.
In the old days, this would involve stakes, guillotines, mobs and the like.
Today you just have the government pass a bill putting a punishing tax rate on the people who profited from the destruction of the economy - a destruction they brought about.
It's brilliant. It's precise. It's vindictive.
And that throaty growl you hear from the American populace, conveyed by the 328-93 vote in Congress?
That's just the beginning.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Gary Goodyear and (micro)-Evolution
After initially refusing to state that he "believed" in evolution, Mr. Goodyear, Canada's minister for science and technology, has changed his mind. He offers the following quote:
First of all, this was on CTV? I thought CTV was averse to "do-overs"?
What Mr. Goodyear is doing here is a typical creationist trick. He's telling us that he can't deny what the creationists call "micro-evolution", the "little" changes within species (or maybe "kinds"). But he won't admit that evolution can create new species and he probably actually believes that there wasn't enough time because the Earth is only about six thousand years old anyway.
On top of that, he's ignorant on the subject of what evolution does say. Let's go over that first bit again. "We are evolving", he says and, as examples, he mentions, "walking on concrete" and "walking in running shoes."
That's really ignorant. Walking on high heels won't make our species evolve differently, at least not in the sense he means. I had an elementary school teacher once tell me that pulling on his ear lobes would cause his kids to have longer ear lobes. That's called Lamarckism and it's very painful to hear from a Minister of Science and Technology. The things you do in your life, unless they involve irradiating your genitals, do not affect the genes of your children. Period. There's no "debate" on this and there hasn't been for two centuries.
And what's this nonsense about it being irrelevant? If you told the space exploration people that you thought the earth was flat because the bible said so, wouldn't that be relevant? If you told the automotive sector that you supported the phlogiston hypothesis, would that be irrelevant? If you wanted the chemists to research Alchemy, would that be irrelevant?
Of course it would be relevant. And if you tell the biologists, the astronomers, the geologists and the paleontologists (this list is not exhaustive) that the Minister in charge of scientific research thinks that the Earth is 6000 years old and that evolution didn't happen, of course they're going to freak out.
They're going to freak out because they know an ignoramus is in charge.
On Tuesday, Mr. Goodyear said twice during the CTV interview that he did believe in evolution.
“We are evolving every year, every decade. That's a fact, whether it is to the intensity of the sun, whether it is to, as a chiropractor, walking on cement versus anything else, whether it is running shoes or high heels, of course we are evolving to our environment. But that's not relevant and that is why I refused to answer the question. The interview was about our science and tech strategy, which is strong.”
First of all, this was on CTV? I thought CTV was averse to "do-overs"?
What Mr. Goodyear is doing here is a typical creationist trick. He's telling us that he can't deny what the creationists call "micro-evolution", the "little" changes within species (or maybe "kinds"). But he won't admit that evolution can create new species and he probably actually believes that there wasn't enough time because the Earth is only about six thousand years old anyway.
On top of that, he's ignorant on the subject of what evolution does say. Let's go over that first bit again. "We are evolving", he says and, as examples, he mentions, "walking on concrete" and "walking in running shoes."
That's really ignorant. Walking on high heels won't make our species evolve differently, at least not in the sense he means. I had an elementary school teacher once tell me that pulling on his ear lobes would cause his kids to have longer ear lobes. That's called Lamarckism and it's very painful to hear from a Minister of Science and Technology. The things you do in your life, unless they involve irradiating your genitals, do not affect the genes of your children. Period. There's no "debate" on this and there hasn't been for two centuries.
And what's this nonsense about it being irrelevant? If you told the space exploration people that you thought the earth was flat because the bible said so, wouldn't that be relevant? If you told the automotive sector that you supported the phlogiston hypothesis, would that be irrelevant? If you wanted the chemists to research Alchemy, would that be irrelevant?
Of course it would be relevant. And if you tell the biologists, the astronomers, the geologists and the paleontologists (this list is not exhaustive) that the Minister in charge of scientific research thinks that the Earth is 6000 years old and that evolution didn't happen, of course they're going to freak out.
They're going to freak out because they know an ignoramus is in charge.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
If You Seek Amy
I never, ever, ever thought that I would use this blog to defend Britney Spears. Seriously. It's fine music to bop along to but I always took her for an airhead pop-star with an electronically altered voice.
But David Hasselhoff flies at his own expense around the world for Make-a-Wish to be with kids who regard him as a hero.
And Ricki Martin runs a foundation that gets kids off the streets of Thailand.
And now Britney ...
So she wrote a song. Or somebody wrote it for her. I don't care. She sang it and it got on the radio before anyone noticed a damn thing wrong with it. It's a song, apparently about a girl named Amy, who does drugs and is otherwise attractive to both girls and boys of her age. Okay, cool. A drug-smoking, bisexual teenager. Britney is in a dance club looking for her.
That's not perfectly grammatical, is it? There's a lot of license taken by song writers in attempting to match a concept to a rhythm. Listen to Alanis Morissette sometime. I could easily argue that there are two sentences there:
"Too". Meaning "also". You could end a sentence there, if you wanted to. Everyone else is begging for Amy. They're begging, too.
The line following is then finishing the thought, putting the thing they're begging for after the word "too", which is weird. The only people who can talk like that are poets and 900 year old Jedi Masters.
But really, if you listen closely, you can hear what she actually meant to say. As clearly as any priest speeding along to the part of the bible where it tells you to pay him money, she gets to the chorus and you know you're not hearing "If you seek Amy" but four letters and a word.
And you know what. I just gotta respect that. Dunno why. I just do.
But David Hasselhoff flies at his own expense around the world for Make-a-Wish to be with kids who regard him as a hero.
And Ricki Martin runs a foundation that gets kids off the streets of Thailand.
And now Britney ...
So she wrote a song. Or somebody wrote it for her. I don't care. She sang it and it got on the radio before anyone noticed a damn thing wrong with it. It's a song, apparently about a girl named Amy, who does drugs and is otherwise attractive to both girls and boys of her age. Okay, cool. A drug-smoking, bisexual teenager. Britney is in a dance club looking for her.
Love me hate me
Say what you want about me
But all of the boys and all of the girls are begging to
If You Seek Amy
Love me hate me
But can't you see what I see
All of the boys and all of the girls are begging to
If You Seek Amy
That's not perfectly grammatical, is it? There's a lot of license taken by song writers in attempting to match a concept to a rhythm. Listen to Alanis Morissette sometime. I could easily argue that there are two sentences there:
But all of the boys and all of the girls are begging too.
"Too". Meaning "also". You could end a sentence there, if you wanted to. Everyone else is begging for Amy. They're begging, too.
The line following is then finishing the thought, putting the thing they're begging for after the word "too", which is weird. The only people who can talk like that are poets and 900 year old Jedi Masters.
Many are seeking this too, if you seek the Force.
But really, if you listen closely, you can hear what she actually meant to say. As clearly as any priest speeding along to the part of the bible where it tells you to pay him money, she gets to the chorus and you know you're not hearing "If you seek Amy" but four letters and a word.
And you know what. I just gotta respect that. Dunno why. I just do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)