Debate the issues facing Seattle Public Schools, share your opinions, read the latest news. Organize and work for high quality public schools that educate all students to become passionate, lifelong learners.
Disqus
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Times Editorial - Wrong Again
I don't know why I even bother, but here is another misguided editorial on education from the Seattle Times.
Oh, so the passage of 1240 is a mandate and yet there were barely 40,000 votes between yes and no.
And yet, the overwhelming wins by McAuliffe and Tomiko-Santos are NOT mandates for their voters wanted?
Oh Times, you and your less-than-cogent thinking.
And you want more bi-partisan leaders? Like Rodney Tom who cannot figure out if he is a Dem or Rep (and note to the Senator - you may find yourself in a very lonely place when NO one in the joint trusts you).
Have to add one of Charlie's laugh out-loud comments as well:
"voters’ embrace of charter schools" Really? A victory by a margin of 50.7% to 49.3% thanks to outspending the other side 17:1 constitutes an "embrace" to you? It makes me sad to think of the kind of embraces you must be getting at home."
I got so depressed when I started to read yet another pro-charter editorial, because I thought, OMG, what's worse than 1240 passing? Years of pro-charter editorials? Aaack.
And then I read Charlie's comment, and frankly, it almost makes it tolerable.
"It makes me sad to think of the kind of embraces you must be getting at home."
You nailed it, Charlie -- and so did you, Melissa. And so did jetcityhelix and Another Arnold. I wish I could believe that if people keep pointing out how idiotic their editorials are, they will stop writing this nonsense -- but then I guess when you are part of the 1% AND you "own" the paper (and it is the only one in town), you can write whatever you please, and enough people will still want to read Pearls Before Swine and Doonesbury to keep subscribing.
Too funny Jan. And oh so true. Add "Dilbert" to the list. Just like my neighborhood school admin. The comics are the main reason I still subscribe to the Times. I just might have to start tracking those down online if the Times persists in their one sided, sophomoric editorials.
The follow up to this editorial in the "Ed Cetera" blog is even worse. It's an effort to suggest that these two legislators are in the pocket of the teachers' union. Only their effort to "follow the money" shows a lot more special interest money on the other side.
I thought it was kinda funny that they said that McAuliffe and Tomiko-Santos were supported by those who opposed charters, those who favored the status quo in schools. I had no idea Melissa and Charlie were such reactionaries!
Charlie, that follow-up was just more piling on. I don't get it. Why do they think that haranguing is going to work? And, of course, their point makes little sense.
Quite funny to hear them complain of one candidate being outspent by the challenger - by a lot - and STILL not winning.
And yet, there is Exhibit A, I-1240, right in front of them.
This brings home to me something I see from all sorts of political groups: settling on a solution and clinging to it like grim death. I predict that, after we get our few dozen charters, and absolutely nothing good comes out of it, the Times will fulminate against all the evil forces that are preventing the obvious solution from actually, you know, solving something. It cannot be possible that charters aren't a solution -- therefore something else must be keeping them from working! Some bad, bad person, or people!
A reasonable person would look at such a result and think, huh, charters aren't the answer. Now what? But the Times, and their ilk, will never be able to believe that they might have been wrong. This same denial of reality is widespread in public policy of all sorts, and is a mixture of baffling and frustrating.
The problem with this kind of "thinking" is that the "answer", in this case charter schools, is decided upon without actually considering what the question really is. It is a purported "solution" without consideration to what the nature of the problem might really be.
Lack of critical thinking? Check. Advocacy for a political position? Check. Attack anyone that questions your position because they are "supporters of the status quo"? Check.
12 comments:
Here was my comment in the Times:
Oh, so the passage of 1240 is a mandate and yet there were barely 40,000 votes between yes and no.
And yet, the overwhelming wins by McAuliffe and Tomiko-Santos are NOT mandates for their voters wanted?
Oh Times, you and your less-than-cogent thinking.
And you want more bi-partisan leaders? Like Rodney Tom who cannot figure out if he is a Dem or Rep (and note to the Senator - you may find yourself in a very lonely place when NO one in the joint trusts you).
Have to add one of Charlie's laugh out-loud comments as well:
"voters’ embrace of charter schools" Really? A victory by a margin of 50.7% to 49.3% thanks to outspending the other side 17:1 constitutes an "embrace" to you? It makes me sad to think of the kind of embraces you must be getting at home."
@Melissa and Charlie,
I got so depressed when I started to read yet another pro-charter editorial, because I thought, OMG, what's worse than 1240 passing? Years of pro-charter editorials? Aaack.
And then I read Charlie's comment, and frankly, it almost makes it tolerable.
"It makes me sad to think of the kind of embraces you must be getting at home."
So snarky but so well deserved.
Laugh of the week for me. Can't stop laughing.
You nailed it, Charlie -- and so did you, Melissa. And so did jetcityhelix and Another Arnold. I wish I could believe that if people keep pointing out how idiotic their editorials are, they will stop writing this nonsense -- but then I guess when you are part of the 1% AND you "own" the paper (and it is the only one in town), you can write whatever you please, and enough people will still want to read Pearls Before Swine and Doonesbury to keep subscribing.
Too funny Jan. And oh so true. Add "Dilbert" to the list. Just like my neighborhood school admin. The comics are the main reason I still subscribe to the Times. I just might have to start tracking those down online if the Times persists in their one sided, sophomoric editorials.
Molly
The follow up to this editorial in the "Ed Cetera" blog is even worse. It's an effort to suggest that these two legislators are in the pocket of the teachers' union. Only their effort to "follow the money" shows a lot more special interest money on the other side.
I thought it was kinda funny that they said that McAuliffe and Tomiko-Santos were supported by those who opposed charters, those who favored the status quo in schools. I had no idea Melissa and Charlie were such reactionaries!
Charlie, that follow-up was just more piling on. I don't get it. Why do they think that haranguing is going to work? And, of course, their point makes little sense.
Quite funny to hear them complain of one candidate being outspent by the challenger - by a lot - and STILL not winning.
And yet, there is Exhibit A, I-1240, right in front of them.
Molly: Dump the Times (I did back in 2000 when they endorsed GW Bush). You can get most of your funnies at GoComics.com.
SolvayGirl
I recently discontinued my subscription to the Times. I wish I could do it again.
Charlie's quote- "It makes me sad to think of the kind of embraces you must be getting at home."-should go down in history!
This brings home to me something I see from all sorts of political groups: settling on a solution and clinging to it like grim death. I predict that, after we get our few dozen charters, and absolutely nothing good comes out of it, the Times will fulminate against all the evil forces that are preventing the obvious solution from actually, you know, solving something. It cannot be possible that charters aren't a solution -- therefore something else must be keeping them from working! Some bad, bad person, or people!
A reasonable person would look at such a result and think, huh, charters aren't the answer. Now what? But the Times, and their ilk, will never be able to believe that they might have been wrong. This same denial of reality is widespread in public policy of all sorts, and is a mixture of baffling and frustrating.
Josh is right.
The problem with this kind of "thinking" is that the "answer", in this case charter schools, is decided upon without actually considering what the question really is. It is a purported "solution" without consideration to what the nature of the problem might really be.
Lack of critical thinking? Check.
Advocacy for a political position? Check.
Attack anyone that questions your position because they are "supporters of the status quo"? Check.
Lame. Really. Lame. Check!
Oompah
Post a Comment