I ordered my copy of Flunked: The Movie. Have you?
I have high hopes for this documentary from the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, hosted by Joe Montegna. It's a nonpartisan look at what's wrong with our public education system and how to fix it.
(Psssst: the answer isn't "more money.")
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at September 18, 2008 08:31 PM | Email ThisYou can see other Evan Coyne Maloney videos here. He's awesome.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 18, 2008 09:00 PMEFF - Nonpartisan?
Are you kidding me?
Posted by: Daniel K on September 18, 2008 10:15 PMEFF - Nonpartisan?
First, yes, they are. They often criticize Republicans ... just much more often Democrats. They are currently in a battle with Sam Reed over underage voters; they've attacked Republican legislators for irresponsible spending; etc.
Second, learn to read: I didn't say in the post that the EFF was nonpartisan, I said the FILM is nonpartisan. Liberal Democrats are actually featured in the film.
Guess it's time for you to stop lying, eh?
Posted by: demo kid on September 19, 2008 12:35 AMWhat is it with you guys that everything has to be partisan? Don't you guys ever agree with topics and ideas you don't agree with?
Your own flag bearer (oops, he isn't into that in fear of upsetting people who hate us) is running on a platform of change (or at one time he was before he showed us his true colors).
If, as all agree, the school system is failed, why are you afraid to make change? Upset your applecart?
I just don't get you guys.
Posted by: swatter on September 19, 2008 07:29 AMThe film is nonpartisan
Why do you apparently use this as evidence I am "lying" when you are in agreement with me?
The EFF is a blatantly political organization, and calling them "nonpartisan" is akin to calling the Christian Coalition "nonpartisan".
Yes, correct, both are nonpartisan. Just like the ACLU, the NRA, and other groups which tend to have a strong association with one side of the political spectrum, but are all about pushing their ideas, and not a party itself. The ACLU, NRA, EFF and, yes, even the Christian Coalition have MANY times attacked members of the party on their "side" of the political spectrum.
A strong association created by general ideological proximity is not partisanship. A group like MoveOn, that exists solely to help Democrats get elected, THAT is an example of a partisan group. You could even argue that many unions, especially here in WA -- such as the WEA -- are partisan, because they often care less about specifics than they do about making sure the Democrats are elected, because they want to do business with the Democrats when it comes time for bargaining.
These are actual comments made on students' report cards by teachers in the New York City public school system. All teachers were reprimanded (but, boy, are these funny!)
1. Since my last report, your child has reached rock bottom and has started to dig.
2. I would not allow this student to breed.
3. Your child has delusions of adequacy.
4. Your son is depriving a village somewhere of an idiot.
5. Your son sets low personal standards and then consistently fails to achieve them.
6. The student has a 'full six-pack' but lacks the plastic thing to hold it all together.
7. This child has been working with glue too much.
8. When your daughter's IQ reaches 50, she should sell.
9. The gates are down, the lights are flashing, but the train isn't coming.
10. If this student were any more stupid, he'd have to be watered twice a week.
11. It's impossible to believe the sperm that created this child beat out 1,000,000 others.
12. The wheel is turning but the hamster is definitely dead.
These 16 Police Comments were taken off actual police car videos around the country:
16. 'You know, stop lights don't come any redder than the one you just went through.'
15. 'Relax, the handcuffs are tight because they're new. They'll stretch after you wear them a while.'
14. 'If you take your hands off the car, I'll make your birth certificate a worthless document.'
13. 'If you run, you'll only go to jail tired.'
12. 'Can you run faster than 1,200 feet per second? Because that's the speed of the bullet that'll be chasing you.'
11. 'You don't know how fast you were going? I guess that means I can write anything I want to on the ticket, huh?'
10. 'Yes, sir, you can talk to the shift supervisor, but I don't think it will help. Oh, did I mention that I'm the shift supervisor?'
9. 'Warning! You want a warning? O.K, I'm warning you not to do that again or I'll give you another ticket.'
8. 'The answer to this last question will determine whether you are drunk or not.. Was Mickey Mouse a cat or a dog?'
7. 'Fair? You want me to be fair? Listen, fair is a place where you go to ride on rides, eat cotton candy and corn dogs and step in monkey poop.'
6. 'Yeah, we have a quota. Two more tickets and my wife gets a toaster oven.'
5. 'In God we trust, all others we run through NCIC.'
4. 'How big were those 'two beers' you say you had?'
3. 'No sir, we don't have quotas anymore. We used to, but now we're allowed to write as many tickets as we can.'
2. 'I'm glad to hear that the Chief (of Police) is a personal friend of yours. So you know someone who can post your bail.'
AND THE WINNER IS...
1. 'You didn't think we give pretty girls tickets. Well, we don't. Sign here."
Instead of dealing with the issues the film raises, he attacks the messenger... the hallmark of the fringe-left nutter.
Posted by: Hinton on September 19, 2008 10:27 AMswatter - partisanship is a fact of the American political system. The Republican party is currently in a battle with Sam Reed over the top two primary - it doesn't change the fact that on the vast majority of issues they take a diametrically opposed position than the Democratic party.
Maybe this is an issue we both agree on: bailing out AIG was not good public policy. You and I are now shareholders who will likely never have a vote on matters AIG. Nationalizing insurance companies? François Mitterrand didn't even do that.
Posted by: Daniel K on September 19, 2008 10:39 AMFilms are made by people, in this case the EFF. To suggest that the film made by the EFF can be disassociated with the EFF partisan policies and support is not credible.
How do you not realize that you are committing both the question-begging and the ad hominem fallacy? I've already debunked the idea that the EFF is a partisan organization, and more to the point, nothing you have said implies partisanship on the issue of making schools work better.
I've already shown, which is not in any doubt, that many liberal Democrats support the efforts of this movie. This is not a partisan issue, and as you've not seen the movie, you have no reason to say it is a partisan movie.
You are basically just making things up, and using obviously fallacious arguments to do it.
Which are you: stupid, or dishonest?
@10: I'm sorry, but despicable lunatics like you are what's truly pathetic about our country. Assuming that fixing schools means that I need to buy what the EFF is selling without critically thinking about their motives and objectives is not just patently absurd, it's completely irresponsible.
I'll stand by my previous statements. Republicans and conservatives will not be satisfied and will not stop until this country is completely destroyed by their own greed and selfishness. There is no interest in the community there, just in themselves.
@12: You really enjoy quoting fallacies... although it seems more like you just have easy access to some kind of philosophy Cliff Notes and aren't afraid to quote it. But I don't think that those mean what you think that they mean.
How do you not realize that you are committing both the question-begging and the ad hominem fallacy? I've already debunked the idea that the EFF is a partisan organization, and more to the point, nothing you have said implies partisanship on the issue of making schools work better.
partisan (noun): 1. an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.
partisan (adjective): 1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of partisans; partial to a specific party, person, etc.
The EFF is DEFINITELY a partisan organization. You haven't provided proof otherwise; you've just made the error of thinking that party politics is the only source of partisanship. (Or just blatantly lying to support your argument.)
Only a fool would not consider the goals and objectives of the interested parties in this case.
Posted by: demo kid on September 19, 2008 11:37 AMIf you answer yes to one of the three questions above you will recognize we need to increase the present levels of funding. Applying funding without expecting performance benchmarks is a proven path to failure, and current resources are being misapplied to begin with. But withholding resources from a gasping entity won't heal it either.
Promoting privatizing education is oligarchy by any other name.
Posted by: Acid Brain on September 19, 2008 11:43 AMYou really enjoy quoting fallacies...
Typical liberal: you're more concerned with my calling out errors, than you are with the errors themselves.
But I don't think that those mean what you think that they mean.
You're wrong, of course.
The EFF is DEFINITELY a partisan organization.
No, it's not.
You haven't provided proof otherwise
Yes, I have.
you've just made the error of thinking that party politics is the only source of partisanship.
In the clear context of this discussion, yes, that is what partisanship refers to. Can you not read? I said the movie was nonpartisan. OBVIOUSLY, that necessarily means it is not Democrat or Republican.
Only a fool would not consider the goals and objectives of the interested parties in this case.
Only a fool -- in this case, Daniel K -- would think that a rightwing group could not produce a nonpartisan movie.
If you answer yes to one of the three questions above you will recognize we need to increase the present levels of funding.
You're lying, of course. This would only be true if a. all the money spent on education went to paying for necessary infrastructure and teacher salaries, and b. teachers could not afford to retire, buy a car, or buy a house.
And even assuming b. is true, which it's not, we know that a. certainly isn't.
But withholding resources from a gasping entity won't heal it either.
Only a moonbat could think that spending like $11,380 per pupil per year in K-12 is "withholding resources."
Lying?
Yes. Why must I repeat myself? You made the case that if A is true and a problem, then we must do B. That argument necessarily implies that the only way to solve A is B, and that is obviously false, as you yourself concede.
So, therefore, you're lying.
talking about spending completely misses the point
No, spending IS the point.
that even if the numbers of allocation are high the resources still aren't reaching their target beneficiary
Yes, and you lied by saying the only solution to this is to increase funding.
Finally, while I would love to respond directly to some of your comments, I will simply bite my tongue. Instead I suggest that you watch the film and see if some of your criticisms of EFF, it's views on education and the movie itself aren't laid to rest.
Posted by: Corey Burres on September 19, 2008 02:44 PMBut even so, $11k isn't enough. A decent private school in Seattle will cost at least $14-15k per kid..and they are non-profit..and in many cases, they still rely on donations to help out.
Now, the real problem is we are woefully behind in AMOUNT, and RIGOR of instruction kids get. 6 hours a day, 180 days a year is not enough, when our global competition is pushing 220-240 days. We have this moronic agrarian throwback called "summer vacation" that needs to be ditched. And the curriculum is loaded with BS like "fuzzy math", "social studies", etc. Our kids need reading, writing, HARD math, science, history, and geography. Music, drama and PE as funds allow, and all kids should learn a foreign language in elementary school, when its actually useful.
This is the only way we're going to compete in this world. And we absolutely need better teachers, especially in Math and Science. There are a lot of older or retired engineers who would be happy to teach, if they didn't have to go back and get an education degree.
Then you haven't seen in quite awhile. It was over $10K a few years ago.
But even so, $11k isn't enough.
It's too much.
A decent private school in Seattle will cost at least $14-15k per kid
Irrelevant, of course, as it's a very different thing.
6 hours a day, 180 days a year is not enough
It's way too much. Most kids don't need half that much time to learn twice what they do.
And the curriculum is loaded with BS like "fuzzy math", "social studies", etc. Our kids need reading, writing, HARD math, science, history, and geography.
There, I agree.
Music, drama and PE as funds allow, and all kids should learn a foreign language in elementary school, when its actually useful.
On language, I mostly disagree. I could not care less about foreign languages. Most kids do not need them, and will never use them, and they are therefore a waste of time and energy for those kids.
I spent two years on French in Jr. High, two more in High School, and then two more on Greek in college. So it's not like I don't know languages myself. I would keep the Greek, but I would really have loved to have never wasted time learning French.
Flunked highlights schools (some within the public system) that operate on far less (ie $6,000-8,000) and are much higher performing. I do agree with your assessment on amount and rigor of instruction but let us leave money out of the equation until we fix the REAL issues of education.
Posted by: Corey Burres on September 19, 2008 03:11 PMI'll stand by my previous statements. Republicans and conservatives will not be satisfied and will not stop until this country is completely destroyed by their own greed and selfishness. There is no interest in the community there, just in themselves.
And this is just one of the main reasons you have no credibility here. Republicans and conservatives have been proven to be more generous with their time, money and blood than liberals and democrats.
I am in no way selfish or greedy nor are any of the republicans or conservatives that I know. Therefore I know your assessment is entirely without merit. You bought into a lie. There are greedy and selfish people, even ones who believe that rich people should pay more taxes and that the government owes poor people enough money to live. A person can believe all they want to about what should be done, the proof of their greed is in their actions. Just look at the charitable giving of the Presidential candidates for a primer on greed.
Posted by: eyago on September 19, 2008 04:07 PMWhat am I missing here?
http://www.issaquah.wednet.edu/documents/budget/Guide0809.pdf
The budget document seems pretty reasonable..I don't see a lot of waste there.
And Pudge, language instruction greatly improves critical thinking skills and logic, especially languages like Latin and Greek (and by extension, French, which is a derivative of Latin). Besides, in the global economy, knowing multiple languages is a critical edge in business. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone speaks English..even in the business world.
The link I provided ...
And Pudge, language instruction greatly improves critical thinking skills and logic
So do thiings other than foreign languages.
Besides, in the global economy, knowing multiple languages is a critical edge in business.
I couldn't care less. I am not a businessperson. Most people aren't. Our schools should not be creating little workers for society. They should be providing tools to participate in democracy and to make one's own choices about what to do.
Is this from the same crowd who claims we have the "5th highest taxes in the country"?? Laughable at best.
Posted by: Proteus on September 19, 2008 05:42 PMIt's not.
According to the 2008-2009 state budget, state spending per student IS $8752.
That is only General Fund spending per student. See Table Eight. General Fund government spending only accounts for about 3/4 of all education spending.
Sorry you're ... wrong. Spending is $11,380.43 per student. Also, the $8752 you're apparently referring to is revenue, not expenditures.
Is this from the same crowd who claims we have the "5th highest taxes in the country"??
We were fifth highest, and we were also second highest. Not sure what it is now, but it's easily in the top 10.
Posted by: pudge on September 19, 2008 06:01 PMLet me explain the lie more clearly... i used the word only nowhere.
I was paraphrasing. What you said directly implied "only" because the word you used was "need": "we need to increase the present levels of funding" you said. If we "need" to spend more money, then spending more money is the "only" thing we can do (not implying there are not other things that could be done in addition, but that this one thing cannot be avoided).
The problems are in efficiencies and performance not in dollars being put in.
OK. So you now deny your previous claim that we "need" to spend more money.
According to the Tax Foundation:
Our state/local tax burden is BELOW the national average. In fact, we rank 35th..not 5th. Eyman has been lying about this for years.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/65.html
The "5th highest STATE taxes" is bullcrap.
We have NO income tax. We have a slightly higher sales tax. Compare this to red states like North Carolina, which have 6% sales tax, 7% income tax, and higher property taxes. I won't even bother with the northeastern US, their taxes are waaay higher. Then again, they have good schools and great transit systems that work, so you get what you pay for.
Um.
Again, it's the Superintendent of Public Instruction, not me, and not the EFF. This is how it is calculated by the government. And since it is actual spending for K-12 education, it makes sense to me, and further, I don't know why you think it is "lame," especially since YOU brought private school tuition, where this sort of thing is already included in the tuition costs.
Frankly, that you apparently wanted to compare private school tuition only to general fund expenditures reveals more than a little bit of dishonesty on your part, unless it was just out of pure ignorance.
The budget is open to all..
No, not really. Most of the specifics are not open at all, because Gregoire made sure education was exempted from the openness of the rest of government.
I'm guessing you don't have kids, or you would care about this stuff.
What a stupid thing to say.
The "5th highest STATE taxes" is bullcrap.
More dishonesty. Your claim was, you recall, "Is this from the same crowd who claims we have the '5th highest taxes in the country'??" Nothing specific to state/local taxes in what you said, and nothing specific to state/local taxes in what the EFF said. It's simply that we have the fifth highest tax burden in the nation, which your link to the Tax Freedom Center shows is true.
We have NO income tax. We have a slightly higher sales tax.
We have a B&O tax. We have the highest state gas tax in the nation, at last check. We have high property taxes.
I won't even bother with the northeastern US, their taxes are waaay higher. Then again, they have good schools and great transit systems that work, so you get what you pay for.
Nonsense. I lived in MA for years, in a comparably valued house, and my tax burden is actually higher here, as we had much lower property taxes there (and sure enough, Massachusetts is only the sixth highest overall tax burden, while it has the 23rd highest state/local taxes, compared to WA's 35th).
Posted by: pudge on September 19, 2008 06:59 PMThe discussion is about STATE/local tax burden. State tax policy has no impact on federal taxes, which are, of course the same everywhere.
Don't know about MA. NJ and NY have property taxes 2-3x higher than here. NC is about 30% higher. And all three have income and sales taxes too.
Because of our low tax burden, this is a great place to retire. Gas tax? inconsequential compared to the already high cost of gas. B&O tax?
Posted by: Proteus on September 21, 2008 12:03 AMYou're being completely dishonest here. You are including average federal tax burden ... The discussion is about STATE/local tax burden.
No. YOU are the one being dishonest, because YOU are the one who brought up taxes and the EFF when you said, Is this from the same crowd who claims we have the "5th highest taxes in the country"?? And the EFF's claim about "5th highest" WAS NOT about "STATE/local tax burden," but total tax burden.
Gas tax? inconsequential compared to the already high cost of gas.
Utter nonsense. I paid about $3.55/gal for gas yesterday, and put in $100 worth in my vehicle, about 28 gallons. If not for the state gas tax of 36 cents, I would have gotten more than three extra gallons, or would have paid more than $10 less for the same amount of gas.
(I am not, of course, saying we should have a gas tax of zero, I am just pointing out that your claim that it is inconsequential is obviously false.)
B&O tax?
Yes. B&O tax. One of the most punitive business-killing taxes in existence.