| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, I hate to point out a glaring fact, but the U.S. Government has been methodically reducing the human right to protect themselves from the government for a long time now. I know I sound like a nut bag conspiracy junky, but if anyone actually read the patriot act, they'd recognize that we have lost the basis of the country's founding. We no longer recognize the bill of rights and the constitution as the basis for our laws.
This is nothing new. across America, law enforcement aren't being taught to protect and serve, they're taught to engage and control. If you reject their authority, it automatically triggers a hostile reaction because you aren't a citizen to the police force, you are a possible hostile indigent.
What basis do I have for this? Try getting through airport security. You are literally policed by a force of officers who get 90 day on the job training, but have the power for search, seizure and detention in direct violation of our basic defining laws. That's just one reference. Try watching copblock.org sometime. Live in fear ladies and gentlemen. Live in fear.
Gee I wonder how they treat the kids?
I'm curious how anyone could conduct a meeting if any yahoo from the audience can just shout out of turn.
I'm curious how anyone could conduct a meeting if any yahoo from the audience can just shout out of turn.
That was pretty much my take on the story. But I do not like the idea that he is being charged with assaulting a police officer when the officer was off duty, sustained no injury, and they claim it happened once he left and the cameras were no longer on him.
There's 3 parts to this.
The scaaaaaary federal government is mandating that you have a basic minimum level of stuff you have to teach kids so, you know, the highschools in some places aren't cranking out quite so many idiots.
Instead of writing the question down for the end of the meeting, the yahoo there disrupts the meeting in the middle and gets tossed out.
The cop does what all cops do when they don't like someone and makes something to arrest him on, then has the charges dropped so he doesn't sue.
The last one is really the only thing to have a problem with.
There's another solution too. Start organizing parents and actually influence school board elections.
Too many people would rather just yell at a meeting though.
Common Core is a colossal mistake and should be roundly criticized. The current system doesn't work, but to say that Common Core is the solution is like saying that a bullet to the head is the solution for brain cancer.
Can you give specifics on that?
Common Core is a colossal mistake and should be roundly criticized. The current system doesn't work, but to say that Common Core is the solution is like saying that a bullet to the head is the solution for brain cancer.
That aside, this video raises some good questions. Who is at fault? Both sides (the Common Core pushers and this man), but who could have actually changed things to reach an amicable solution? Only the Common Core pushers. Asking people to write their questions on sheets of paper and having those people trust you that you won't conveniently run out of time before their question is asked is a bridge too far. The CC people, if they were acting in good faith, would have planned an open mic question and answer period during the meeting.
This is a common tactic for school boards, city councils, legislatures etc. Sharply restrict and control all speech and questions then brag about how you listened to the people. Use force when convenient.
This format of forcing parents to submit questions in writing gives the school board complete control of what questions are addressed and which ones are ignored. Then they use the easiest questions to run out the clock on the meeting, and then they pat themselves on the back for being enlightened and caring civil servants.
There's another solution too. Start organizing parents and actually influence school board elections.
Too many people would rather just yell at a meeting though.
We can do both they are not mutually exclusive.
How often have you changed your convictions when someone else was yelling at you?
How often have you changed your convictions when someone else was yelling at you?
I am less concerned about the scumbags on the school board changing their convictions than I am about them doing their jobs.
They work for him. Hopefully he and the voters in that district fire them.
How often have you changed your convictions when someone else was yelling at you?I am less concerned about the scumbags on the school board changing their convictions than I am about them doing their jobs.
They work for him. Hopefully he and the voters in that district fire them.
They volunteer for him. Is that even a paid position?
The thing is that they also work for the entire district, not just him. They need to have the meeting with each other to get business done, they have to let everyone talk, they also need to go home before midnight and get up for work the next day. That precludes endless grarging in the middle of the meeting. Now its entirely possible they weren't going to answer his question , but there's no way of knowing that.
How often have you changed your convictions when someone else was yelling at you?I am less concerned about the scumbags on the school board changing their convictions than I am about them doing their jobs.
They work for him. Hopefully he and the voters in that district fire them.
They volunteer for him. Is that even a paid position?
The thing is that they also work for the entire district, not just him. They need to have the meeting with each other to get business done, they have to let everyone talk, they also need to go home before midnight and get up for work the next day. That precludes endless grarging in the middle of the meeting. Now its entirely possible they weren't going to answer his question , but there's no way of knowing that.
They could make an estimate; allot, say, 5 minutes per person/question, and take as many questions as they have time for in the scheduled time of the meeting. It not rocket science.
EDIT: looks like $52,200 if it's Baltimore
City school board member resigns over questions about credentials
How often have you changed your convictions when someone else was yelling at you?I am less concerned about the scumbags on the school board changing their convictions than I am about them doing their jobs.
They work for him. Hopefully he and the voters in that district fire them.
You said they weren't mutually exclusive.
I'm just curious when you've experienced this tactic to have been effective on yourself. When has someone behaved in a similar manner and actually changed your mind.
How often have you changed your convictions when someone else was yelling at you?I am less concerned about the scumbags on the school board changing their convictions than I am about them doing their jobs.
They work for him. Hopefully he and the voters in that district fire them.
You said they weren't mutually exclusive.
I'm just curious when you've experienced this tactic to have been effective on yourself. When has someone behaved in a similar manner and actually changed your mind.
I have never been an elected official. I feel no need to rule over others.
Nice dodge.
Are you now suggesting that it is the job of all elected officials to put up with verbal abuse ad infinitum?
I have never been an elected official. I feel no need to rule over others.How often have you changed your convictions when someone else was yelling at you?I am less concerned about the scumbags on the school board changing their convictions than I am about them doing their jobs.
They work for him. Hopefully he and the voters in that district fire them.
You said they weren't mutually exclusive.
I'm just curious when you've experienced this tactic to have been effective on yourself. When has someone behaved in a similar manner and actually changed your mind.
I didn't ask if you've ever been an elected official.
I asked if you've ever had your mind changed by someone yelling at you.
Nice dodge.
Are you now suggesting that it is the job of all elected officials to put up with verbal abuse ad infinitum?
I don't see where I said that.
In theory they work for us, and they should listen to us.
In practice they believe that they own us, and they don't want to hear from the livestock.
I don't see where I said that.Nice dodge.
Are you now suggesting that it is the job of all elected officials to put up with verbal abuse ad infinitum?
IT asked when someone had someone belligerently yelling at you changed your opinion on something, and you said you had never been an elected official. To me, that insinuated that being yelled at was part of their job, in your opinion.
They could make an estimate; allot, say, 5 minutes per person/question, and take as many questions as they have time for in the scheduled time of the meeting. It not rocket science.
They had something like this. Questions were written down to be asked. He didn't want to wait his turn. Apparently he skipped that part in kindergarten.
I have never been an elected official. I feel no need to rule over others.How often have you changed your convictions when someone else was yelling at you?I am less concerned about the scumbags on the school board changing their convictions than I am about them doing their jobs.
They work for him. Hopefully he and the voters in that district fire them.
You said they weren't mutually exclusive.
I'm just curious when you've experienced this tactic to have been effective on yourself. When has someone behaved in a similar manner and actually changed your mind.
I didn't ask if you've ever been an elected official.
I asked if you've ever had your mind changed by someone yelling at you.
That's not true. You asked, "How often have you changed your convictions when someone else was yelling at you?" I don't think I have ever changed a conviction through this kind of criticism.
I have certainly had my mind changed by being yelled at. The Army comes readily to mind.
If you are trying to suggest that protesting by yelling or chanting or whatnot is not a valid way to change unjust government policies I disagree. One can chant, yell, sing, rally and criticize as well as organize and take action at the polls and in the courts.
They had something like this. Questions were written down to be asked. He didn't want to wait his turn. Apparently he skipped that part in kindergarten.
They could make an estimate; allot, say, 5 minutes per person/question, and take as many questions as they have time for in the scheduled time of the meeting. It not rocket science.
How do you know he didn't want to wait his turn?
Do you know that his question would have been selected?
EDIT: I have already explained why I think they went with the written question format.
HereCommon Core is a colossal mistake and should be roundly criticized. The current system doesn't work, but to say that Common Core is the solution is like saying that a bullet to the head is the solution for brain cancer.Can you give specifics on that?
This is.. not very specific.
Subjects are mere tools, just as scalpels, acetylene torches, and transits are tools. Surgeons, welders, surveyors — and teachers — should be held accountable for the quality of what they produce, not how they produce it.
This isn't a valid complaint. If a carpenter can't swing a hammer then they're going to be a lousey carpenter no matter how well they embrace the conceptualization of a building.
Two: The world changes. The future is indiscernible. Clinging to a static strategy in a dynamic world may be comfortable, even comforting, but it’s a Titanic-deck-chair exercise.
Math stays the same. reading stays mostly the same. Classical physics doesn't change etc. Good history should stay pretty close to the same. There's also no reason why common core has to get set in stone for all time.
Three: The Common Core Standards assume that what kids need to know is covered by one or another of the traditional core subjects. In fact, the unexplored intellectual terrain lying between and beyond those familiar fields of study is vast, expands by the hour, and will go in directions no one can predict.
Which is why its common core, not common everything you're ever going to be taught.
Four: So much orchestrated attention is being showered on the Common Core Standards, the main reason for poor student performance is being ignored—a level of childhood poverty the consequences of which no amount of schooling can effectively counter.
Which is being opposed by the same people opposing common core.
Five: The Common Core kills innovation. When it’s the only game in town, it’s the only game in town.
Again, common core, not everything.
Six: The Common Core Standards are a set-up for national standardized tests, tests that can’t evaluate complex thought, can’t avoid cultural bias, can’t measure non-verbal learning, can’t predict anything of consequence (and waste boatloads of money).
Standardized tests aren't perfect but they're a fair sight better than "oh yeah we're just gonna pass this kid out because he's eating all of our pastel.A+ !"
Seven: The word “standards” gets an approving nod from the public (and from most educators) because it means “performance that meets a standard.” However, the word also means “like everybody else,”
There's a certain amount of reality that isn't subject to existentialism. That should be the same for everyone (students should be exposed to some varying opinions, but not their own facts)
Eight: The Common Core Standards’ stated aim — “success in college and careers”— is at best pedestrian, at worst an affront. The young should be exploring the potentials of humanness.
... philosobabble.
How do you know he didn't want to wait his turn?
Others point out that Small broke the meeting’s rules by asking his question vocally rather than writing it on a piece of paper and submitting it for the panel.<--- fron the article.
Do you know that his question would have been selected?
It might not have been. But what makes his questions more pertinent than the questions of everyone else that is waiting their turn?
EDIT: I have already explained why I think they went with the written question format.
Which is a might circular.
And might have gotten further if he's been more specific about what he didn't like about common core. It might just be that he's a ranting loon getting lead away by the cops but he seems to have more grarg than points.
I have never been an elected official. I feel no need to rule over others.How often have you changed your convictions when someone else was yelling at you?I am less concerned about the scumbags on the school board changing their convictions than I am about them doing their jobs.
They work for him. Hopefully he and the voters in that district fire them.
You said they weren't mutually exclusive.
I'm just curious when you've experienced this tactic to have been effective on yourself. When has someone behaved in a similar manner and actually changed your mind.
I didn't ask if you've ever been an elected official.
I asked if you've ever had your mind changed by someone yelling at you.
That's not true. You asked, "How often have you changed your convictions when someone else was yelling at you?" I don't think I have ever changed a conviction through this kind of criticism.
I have certainly had my mind changed by being yelled at. The Army comes readily to mind.
If you are trying to suggest that protesting by yelling or chanting or whatnot is not a valid way to change unjust government policies I disagree. One can chant, yell, sing, rally and criticize as well as organize and take action at the polls and in the courts.
You're right, I did the opposite of narrowing the goalposts.
I'm all for holding government accountable and being able to speak their mind. I do agree, one can be an a%$!#%+ and still participate in the political process in valid ways, it isn't mutually exclusive.
Other than purely defending his right to free speech, I'm curious what the value in that kind of behavior is. You seem to be approaching it as if he did something useful. I want to know what that is. We seem to be in agreement that it doesn't really change people's minds.
If it's "raising awareness", I can honestly say that I couldn't tell wtf he was angry about just from the video.
I'm all for people getting more angry and using that energy to get involved. I think that getting angry and letting your steam off the way he did is a pointless exercise and will probably do him more harm than good in the long term.
I'm only continuing on this line because you seemed to want to defend his action in some way.
How do you know he didn't want to wait his turn?Others point out that Small broke the meeting’s rules by asking his question vocally rather than writing it on a piece of paper and submitting it for the panel.<--- fron the article.
Do you know that his question would have been selected?It might not have been. But what makes his questions more pertinent than the questions of everyone else that is waiting their turn?
EDIT: I have already explained why I think they went with the written question format.Which is a might circular.
And might have gotten further if he's been more specific about what he didn't like about common core. It might just be that he's a ranting loon getting lead away by the cops but he seems to have more grarg than points.
I know what the article says. I don't see where it said, "He wouldn't wait his turn."
I never said his question was more pertinent, but he certainly has a right to ask it.
Then give him his 5 minutes to rant. It's his five minutes. Sometimes in town halls or school board meetings people rant. This is America. That kind of thing used to be allowed. If he goes past his 5 minutes the sergeant at arms can take the mike or show him out rather than having a cop arrest him and threaten to put him in prison for ten years.
I'm no fan of common core, but his position isn't really the issue. The issue is that he's a citizen, parent and a tax payer (I presume) he has a right to address his elected officials. We used to encourage citizen participation and parental involvement. Folks get out of order at meetings sometimes. Sometimes they do it on purpose to make a point like code Pink getting arrested at a hearing or some such. Regardless of their position maybe citizens getting involved and addressing their politicians is a generally positive thing.
I have never been an elected official. I feel no need to rule over others.How often have you changed your convictions when someone else was yelling at you?I am less concerned about the scumbags on the school board changing their convictions than I am about them doing their jobs.
They work for him. Hopefully he and the voters in that district fire them.
You said they weren't mutually exclusive.
I'm just curious when you've experienced this tactic to have been effective on yourself. When has someone behaved in a similar manner and actually changed your mind.
I didn't ask if you've ever been an elected official.
I asked if you've ever had your mind changed by someone yelling at you.
That's not true. You asked, "How often have you changed your convictions when someone else was yelling at you?" I don't think I have ever changed a conviction through this kind of criticism.
I have certainly had my mind changed by being yelled at. The Army comes readily to mind.
If you are trying to suggest that protesting by yelling or chanting or whatnot is not a valid way to change unjust government policies I disagree. One can chant, yell, sing, rally and criticize as well as organize and take action at the polls and in the courts.
You're right, I did the opposite of narrowing the goalposts.
I'm all for holding government accountable and being able to speak their mind. I do agree, one can be an a@##+!@ and still participate in the political process in valid ways, it isn't mutually exclusive.
Other than purely defending his right to free speech, I'm curious what the value in that kind of behavior is. You seem to be approaching it as if he did something useful. I want to know what that is. We seem to be in agreement that it doesn't really change people's minds.
If it's "raising awareness", I can honestly...
I have no idea how effective his actions were. Sometimes we get angry and yell at corrupt politicians and it makes no difference, but sometimes when enough people get angry we can move policy in better directions. It also lets politicians know that we are paying attention to what they are doing. I think it's healthy.
I think threatening people with 10 years of prison for having an opinion is abominable.
This isn't about carpentry.
Its an analogy.
Its about teaching kids to think critically, to do research,to question authority and what people currently believe
None of which you can do if you can't do the basics like reading comprehension, which is the entire point of core.
to consciously hold two or more mutually contradictory beliefs in one's head simultaneoussly, to test everything that can be trusted and to not get too attached to what can't be tested, to solve complex problems involving social and technical and financial characteristics.
Have we ever found a good way of teaching this?
Math, reading, and classical physics pedagogy does change.
If a newer pedagogy works it should still be able to answer the questions on a standardized test.
Its maintained by a massive beuracracy which is distantly located and which has a vested interest in the common core not changing (for example, selling textbooks sitting in warehouses).
I thought part of the new push was getting kids kindles or something (which you can get for cheaper than a history textbook)
Schools on the Common Core have little resources left to teach those things.
Having repeated the same history lessons at least three times going through the public school system i have a hard time believing this.
Common Core is maintained by a central beuracracy. So, we can talk about it as being one thing. Anti-Common Core is not.
Then you can't complain that there are bigger problems. If this helps then it helps.
As I mentioned earlier, calling Common Core the solution to the current problem is like calling a bullet to the head the cure for brain cancer.
I'm really not seeing the harm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know what the article says. I don't see where it said, "He wouldn't wait his turn."
The party where it said questions were written down to be asked, but he was screaming like a lunatic
I never said his question was more pertinent, but he certainly has a right to ask it.
Then give him his 5 minutes to rant.
there's what.. 30 people there? More? it looks packed. You want them to have a 3 hour rant fest?
I know what the article says. I don't see where it said, "He wouldn't wait his turn."The party where it said questions were written down to be asked, but he was screaming like a lunatic
I never said his question was more pertinent, but he certainly has a right to ask it.
Then give him his 5 minutes to rant.
there's what.. 30 people there? More? it looks packed. You want them to have a 3 hour rant fest?
Have you ever been to a school board meeting?
If that many people feel that strongly about something then maybe the elected officials should listen and at least pretend to care.
Again this is really simple.
"Show of hands; how many folks have questions? 20? OK, we only have a hour left so every body only gets 3 minutes for their question and answer. Please form a line at the mike."
Seriously, it's not rocket science.
I honestly can't read those posts where it's one line of quote, one line of response, one line of quote, one line of response. The formating, it just gives me a headache and I can't follow it.
"Show of hands; how many folks have questions? 20? OK, we only have a hour left so every body only gets 3 minutes for their question and answer. Please form a line at the mike."
Seriously, it's not rocket science.
How many people stop when their three minutes are up?
Or they hand out note cards and take them out of a hat until they're done, or group them into roughly the same question. You're alleging, without evidence, some conspiracy of silence when the only thing we know is that he wasn't willing to wait his turn. Your only complaint is that they're not organizing their meeting the way YOU want.
Comprehension of the written word requires critical thinking and the ability to question what somebody else tells you that written word is about.
Then if you've taught reading comprehension then you've taught some critical thinking. Problem solved.
You can't complain that we're not teaching critical thinking when you can't show me how to teach critical thinking.
No, which is one of the reasons Common Core is such a problem. We need more research to figure out better ways to teach this stuff. But, research depends on diversity of hypotheses. A central political bureacracy can't provide that.
And you want me to believe that every single classroom is going to be another strand of spaghetti to throw at the wall to see what sticks?
If we were going to teach critical thinking that way we would have done it by now.
A newer pedagogy may improve a class' understanding while not improving test scores.
If it doesn't drop them by all means try them. I don't see what in common core would prevent you from increasing a kids understanding.
I don't know where you read that. I found many hardback Common Core textbooks on the web.
How does this refute my comment?
Your argument is that schools don't have enough time to do anything but core. My argument is that schools waste a lot of time rehashing the same thing because they have too much time to fill babysitting between k and 12.
You make so little sense here that I don't know how to respond.
I'll be more direct then.
When it helps your argument, the problems with education can't be solved by education so there's no point in trying to change it. When you like a change in education , THEN education is its own discrete unit to fix.
"Show of hands; how many folks have questions? 20? OK, we only have a hour left so every body only gets 3 minutes for their question and answer. Please form a line at the mike."
Seriously, it's not rocket science.
How many people stop when their three minutes are up?
Or they hand out note cards and take them out of a hat until they're done, or group them into roughly the same question. You're alleging, without evidence, some conspiracy of silence when the only thing we know is that he wasn't willing to wait his turn. Your only complaint is that they're not organizing their meeting the way YOU want.
In my experience basically everyone, sometimes for 11 to 13 hours at a time. I've spent 13 hours at hearings at the state capitol to speak for 120 seconds. The legislators were douche hammers, but the citizens were remarkably polite.
I said, "This is a common tactic for school boards, city councils, legislatures etc. Sharply restrict and control all speech and questions then brag about how you listened to the people. Use force when convenient.
This format of forcing parents to submit questions in writing gives the school board complete control of what questions are addressed and which ones are ignored. Then they use the easiest questions to run out the clock on the meeting, and then they pat themselves on the back for being enlightened and caring civil servants."
I don't see an allegation there. I don't claim any special knowledge of the particulars of this meeting. I have been in too many meetings with school administrators, school boards, county commissioners, state legislators, federal congressmen, and GOP party asshats up to the state level. I'm expressing my opinion based on my experience.
My only complaint is NOT that I don't like how the meeting was run (which I don't).
I've been in meetings many times more heated than that, but we managed not to have anyone cuffed and threatened with felony charges.
So when you say "my only complaint" in light of all of my posts on this page that's pretty dishonest.
I'm obviously not just unhappy with the format. I think threatening someone with ten years in prison to get them to keep their political grievances to them selves is un American.
This isn't the first post here where I've said this either. Feel free to look up thread.
In my experience basically everyone, sometimes for 11 to 13 hours at a time. I've spent 13 hours at hearings at the state capitol to speak for 120 seconds. The legislators were douche hammers, but the citizens were remarkably polite.
No one is staying at a school board meeting for 13 hours.
I said, "This is a common tactic for school boards, city councils, legislatures etc. Sharply restrict and control all speech and questions then brag about how you listened to the people. Use force when convenient.
Yeah, you can say your paranoid conspiracy theories all you want, it doesn't make it the case.
This format of forcing parents to submit questions in writing gives the school board complete control of what questions are addressed and which ones are ignored.
Or gives them time to come up with a real answer, saves time using a hook to get people away from the mic after 20 minutes, lets them group the same question/complaint being asked, keeps the screaming to a minimum etc. There are a lot of advantages to it.
Then they use the easiest questions to run out the clock on the meeting, and then they pat themselves on the back for being enlightened and caring civil servants."
I don't see an allegation there.
... Seriously?
You're accusing them of stacking the deck. Avoiding questions. And blatant dishonesty, NONE of which you have any evidence for.
I don't claim any special knowledge of the particulars of this meeting.
You are claiming you know that
1) the written question wouldn't have be answered.
2) the board would have deliberately avoided the question
3) the board pre screens the questions to avoid the tough ones.
Which you cannot do in this particular case unless you want to claim that every public meeting does this.
So when you say "my only complaint" in light of all of my posts on this page that's pretty dishonest.
sorry, your only legitimate complaint, your only reality based complaint, and your only complaint based in anything but your own grarrrrg were more polite but less accurate.
I'm obviously not just unhappy with the format. I think threatening someone with ten years in prison to get them to keep their political grievances to them selves is un American.
Was it his message they didn't like or his delivery of interrupting the meeting in the middle and screaming his head off so that the meeting couldn't continue? You're assuming a lot here with NO evidence.
Unless the common core principals on Wikipedia are different than the actual common core principals you guys are talking about, I don't see much of a problem. The listed principals are incredibly generic guidelines along the lines that students will read progressively more complex pieces of literature each grade, or students will be able to solve equations. What's the issue?
What is school for?
Unless the common core principals on Wikipedia are different than the actual common core principals you guys are talking about, I don't see much of a problem. The listed principals are incredibly generic guidelines along the lines that students will read progressively more complex pieces of literature each grade, or students will be able to solve equations. What's the issue?
I wish I knew. AFAIK it's just a kneejerk reaction to the gubment trying to do something. Even though it's not forced upon anyone, a state voluntary adops the standards (and presumably can opt out if it goes poorly) and, correct me people if I'm wrong, the standards were developed by a non-governmental organization.
I suspect a lot of the negative reaction is people who want to beat the bible into kids in public schools.
I dunno. I imagine I must have graduated HS before they brought in all these standardized tests so I don't know how onerous they truly are. I'd say its more important to have a core standard than it is to continually test knowledge of that standard, let alone tie funding to it.
Alls I know is that, left to their own devices, a lot of schools will start teaching creationism as science.