"A wave of new research has emerged suggesting that private school vouchers may harm students who receive them."
You don't say! Just as a new policy agenda is about to be implemented, there's a "wave" of research suggesting it should be blocked. What a complete surprise.
It would seem, David, that valid policy research should acknowledge that there are better and worse ways to frame a voucher program, and significant differences in the way these programs have been structured in the various states where they've been tried. Valid policy research might want to distinguish between systems where the private schools where vouchers can be applied require credentialing of the educators who staff their classrooms, for example, and systems where no such credentialing is required. Or it might want to note whether the state level departments of education in various states' voucher programs provide any kind of oversight or enforce any standards.
It turns out making valid education policy recommendations actually requires mastery of the details and the conditions on the ground in the educational systems in question. The condition of public school systems in Southern Arizona may not be the same as the condition of public schools in surrounding Portland, Oregon, or Minneapolis, Minnesota. Diocese of Tucson schools may not be the same as other diocesan systems throughout the nation. "Catch all" categories like "students using vouchers," which obliterate meaningful and significant differences between the characteristics of the systems the students in question are leaving when they "use a voucher" and the systems they are entering, are utterly useless as a basis for formulating policy.
So it comes down once again to what your real motive may be in writing this, as a die-hard Democratic party machine propagandist. Your motive, as you have shown many times in your various writings on vouchers, on charters, and on our largest local DISASTER of a public school district, is to keep the $$$$$ in the public district system that is interwoven with the Democratic party both locally and nationally.
So why not just say so?
Oh yeah, because "Adopt policies that benefit my party!!!" doesn't generally go over well with the masses you are trying to sheep-herd into your policy corral. Nevertheless, that is precisely what you are saying, over and over again in this sad little blog.
Let's get together and make killing the unborn free to anyone!
A fundraiser for Planned Parenthood that is being promoted as "Family Friendly?"
That takes a whole lot of chutzpah! Because as we all know not everybody winds up with a family.
So you are saying that failing public schools are failing because of low income students? And then to top it off the public schools are fixing grades?
When all else fails, blame Bush.
The logic of this article escapes me. It seems to be comparing contemporary slang English with "traditional Chinese". First, "traditional Chinese" is undefined: "Chinese" is not a language, but a family of languages. The article never states which Chinese language was used for translations. It seems unlikely that all Chinese languages use the same terms to refer to sex. If "traditional Chinese" means "classical Chinese", which is indeed used to refer to a single language, then it seems preposterous to compare words used in classical literary Chinese with contemporary English slang.
Moreover, it is surprising these days to find an article that is unaware, or ignores, the obvious fact that perception of vulgarity is subjective: based on social and personal tastes. The terms the author finds poetic might be offensive to others, while terms like "cock" and "pussy" - which are simply animal metaphors, based on physical appearance - do not bring to my mind the violent negative connotations mentioned here.
Try this experiment: learn a few slang Cantonese sex terms, then ask a Cantonese-speaking journalist if those words are vulgar or melodic - you may be surprised.
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation