[quote]randman wrote:
hspder wrote:
“Extreme liberal”? That’s a very mature comment.
I’m just calling the kettle black. You’re not an extreme liberal?[/quote]
First of all, I’ll need a definition of “extreme liberal”, since I can’t seem to find one anywhere. Second, if you think I’m extreme, I definitely must introduce you to some people I know… They make me look like a right-wing activist sometimes.
I think you need to realize that issues are a lot more complicated than “common sense” might seem to tell you. Trying to over-simplify the issues doesn’t make them simpler: it just makes the consequences worse.
[quote]hspder wrote:
I think you need to realize that issues are a lot more complicated than “common sense” might seem to tell you. Trying to over-simplify the issues doesn’t make them simpler: it just makes the consequences worse.
[/quote]
No, actually there not that complicated unless you want them to be. I made a mistake to even characterize proposition 76 as a partisan initiative becuase it isn’t. Liberals and conservatives alike should vote Yes on 76. It’s a simple issue. Spend less revenue than you take in. That’s it.
Hey, I’m all for education spending. How much spending and where it goes to is where you may see differing opinions if you lean left or right. But all of this is a moot point when we continue to spend more than we take in for state revenues. Prop 76 at least has some teeth in it to ensure we don’t spend more than we take in. It’s simple really. No need to complicate it.
[quote]hspder wrote:
randman wrote:
The more important issue, in our view, is respecting the rights of parents and families.
I decided to ignore the rest of your blatant political campaign, but I can’t this one slip.
“Rights of parents and families” ?!?!?!?!?!
Since when do “parents and families” have any rights in a modern society. What do you think this is? Medieval Europe? Ancient Japan?
Where the heck did you come up with that crap? That is so wrong on so many levels I can’t even believe you actually wrote it.
If you want to defend that asinine proposition, at least come up with stuff that doesn’t sound it came straight from the Dark Ages.
[/quote]
So you actually think underage girls (let say a thirteen year old) have the “right” to have an abortion without any notification to the parents?!?
I don’t know why this line set you off so much. Your damn right I have rights as a parent in modern society. As long as my son is living under my roof depending on me as parent and as a financial resource I have rights as a parent.
What is so partisan again about this initiative? All the prop is saying is that parents should be notified 48 hours before a scheduled abortion. What’s the problem? Remember, in your post, you called it asinine, crap, etc. At least elaborate on your view of why you think my post is crap.
I did see that the standard deviation was pretty low for both – though it was higher for CA, which would go to my point. The CA score is quite a bit above the national mean, and a little bit more above the Texas mean. With a sample size that large, you get a bell curve with this sort of thing - thought the CA curve is flatter, and the TX curve, unfortunately, has a bit of a downward skew.
When you’re talking about averages, you have to admit that the number can be affected by having a large number of numbers at the extremes. CA definitely has more scorers at the higher extremes than does Texas – by enough of an amount to account for your “brutal” difference.
Now, I don’t think the CA school system does anything in particular that gives rise to its significantly higher number of merit-scholar quality scores (and yes, I’m aware of the fact that it’s the PSAT that sets the merit-scholar bound, but I liked the way it sounded). I think the fact that CA has a very large Asian population, combined with the drawing power that the Silicon Valley has for professionals who would tend to have been scorers in the top 5% on the SAT themselves (and more recently, San Diego as well, though not in as large a number), would tend to lend itself to a larger number of higher scorers who could drag up the mean score. And from looking at the numbers, this seems to be what is occurring.
Texas and CA both have large numbers of both legal and illegal ESL immigrant kids coming across the border, as well as a significant number of kids coming from poverty-stricken homes. This leads to their comparable numbers at the bottom of the scoring distribution. Texas just doesn’t have the same population advantages when it comes to producing higher scorers on the SAT.
I’d say that reasoning seems to give a much better explanation for the difference than an explanation hinged on teacher seniority privileges.
I’m not actually concerned with GPA, because in the end that’s comparing apples to oranges – you can’t compare GPAs, which is one of the main reasons why the SATs were introduced in the first instance.
Texas is the exact example of why performance incentives fail: they lower the bar.[/quote]
To be clear, I teach at a public charter school. I was talking about the success rate of our school. The incentives we receive are local, not statewide. My school outperforms the state average by about 25-30% on every measure the state uses to grade us. We also spend about $2500 less per student.
[quote]
Texas students have higher average High School GPAs than Californian students, but lower SAT scores and perform worse in college. Actually, their average SAT Reasoning test score is much below the Federal average. That means one thing: High School is less demanding in Texas than in California, so Texan students graduate knowing less…[/quote]
No arguement there. Our public schools stink and are way too oriented toward extra-curricular activities. Charter schools don’t have the same limitations on us as public schools do.
Statewide, I don’t know what the problem is. I do know that charter schools like the KIPP Academy, IDEA Academy and YES College Prep are all doing great things with less money for poor kids of parents who are uneducated.
Came home tonight from training. I asked a friend to tape the whole interview about the proposions being aired on television. Arnold is supposed to speak also.
I’ll view the tape and come back later with possible questions or details. Thanks everyone for all the info. I’m actually in the category of swing voters. I personally think there are many univeristy students who can vote conservative, liberal, or moderate.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I’m not actually concerned with GPA, because in the end that’s comparing apples to oranges – you can’t compare GPAs, which is one of the main reasons why the SATs were introduced in the first instance.[/quote]
But that’s my whole point… If you’re not concerned with it, we’re basically talking about different things – I’m looking at the different level of demand that TX and CA schools seem to have of their students. You’re basically grasping at straws to justify different SAT scores.
My point is that while TX has a higher mean High-School GPA, it does not have a nigher mean SAT – on the contrary. Unless you’re going to argue that Asian students only become better students when they turn 18, I can’t see how your explanation serves any purpose explaining that discrepancy.
You’re essentially doing the same I complained about before: changing the subject!
[quote]hspder wrote:
Now, do not take this the wrong way: I can only but respect the effort to improve things, and Texas has some of the best managed (money wise) school districts in the country.
doogie wrote:
What gives you that idea?
[/quote]
That was my poor attempt at sarcasm. Sorry for that.
And thank you for your straightforward and honest answers. It was a really good post.
[quote]gold’s wrote:
I personally think there are many univeristy students who can vote conservative, liberal, or moderate. [/quote]
Actually, that is what the statistics also show too… There is no clear “bias” towards any of the sides in University students – they’re actually a pretty good sample of the general population.
[quote]hspder wrote:
gold’s wrote:
I personally think there are many univeristy students who can vote conservative, liberal, or moderate.
Actually, that is what the statistics also show too… There is no clear “bias” towards any of the sides in University students – they’re actually a pretty good sample of the general population.
[quote]randman wrote:
I don’t know why this line set you off so much. Your damn right I have rights as a parent in modern society. As long as my son is living under my roof depending on me as parent and as a financial resource I have rights as a parent.[/quote]
Your kids are not your employees. You do not feed them and provide them a roof expecting anything in return. You feed them and provide them with a roof because it’s your civil and moral obligation to do so, since you are responsible for bringing them to life.
Kids don’t ask to be born, and they certainly don’t pick their parents. And you want to have “rights” over them and their own children? For what?
That’s just screwed up.
[quote]randman wrote:
What is so partisan again about this initiative? All the prop is saying is that parents should be notified 48 hours before a scheduled abortion. What’s the problem? Remember, in your post, you called it asinine, crap, etc. At least elaborate on your view of why you think my post is crap.[/quote]
Do you have any idea how scared these kids are of their parents? Do you really think that if they weren’t they wouldn’t tell them themselves?
If a girl wants an abortion and doesn’t tell their parents there is a good reason for that. The last thing you want is to have a young girl that is scared out of her mind to have to worry about their parents’ reaction.
I believe I mentioned before that I do some volunteer work – at Stanford Hospital, among other places. My wife does too. We deal with a lot of teenage pregnancies. And, trust me, you have no idea how screwed up some of these parents are.
I know the prop is supposed to take care of these cases, but I’ve talked to many of these girls – both recently and in the past – and trust me: as much as we tell them they’re protected, if this thing gets approved, they will NOT go the legal route. They’ll start finding people that will do the abortion without telling their parents – and as we all know an abortion is serious business, and if it is not performed in the most sterile conditions, by people that know exactly what they’re doing, these girls will be maimed or even killed in the process.
Nothing good can come of warning the parents if the kids won’t do it themselves. Absolutely nothing.
Your kids are not your employees. You do not feed them and provide them a roof expecting anything in return. You feed them and provide them with a roof because it’s your civil and moral obligation to do so, since you are responsible for bringing them to life.
Kids don’t ask to be born, and they certainly don’t pick their parents. And you want to have “rights” over them and their own children? For what?
That’s just screwed up.
[/quote]
Do you have kids? Just curious.
Do you not agree that until very recently in the history of humans, people had kids to WORK for the family? It was a trade-off: parents give the kids life, the kids work for the parents.
[quote]randman wrote:
What is so partisan again about this initiative? All the prop is saying is that parents should be notified 48 hours before a scheduled abortion. What’s the problem? Remember, in your post, you called it asinine, crap, etc. At least elaborate on your view of why you think my post is crap.
Do you have any idea how scared these kids are of their parents? Do you really think that if they weren’t they wouldn’t tell them themselves?
If a girl wants an abortion and doesn’t tell their parents there is a good reason for that. The last thing you want is to have a young girl that is scared out of her mind to have to worry about their parents’ reaction.[/quote]
I’ve had a few (more than 2)girlfriends that had abortions in highschool–not my kids (I admit that I attracted messed up chicks). None of these girls told their parents. None of them kept the secret out of fear of beatings or any other type of abuse. They just didn’t want to deal wit hte hassle that admitting to their parents that they were immature, irresponsible kids would cause. Each and every one of those girls were haunted by their choice to kill their child (by age 23).
Of course there is no way to seperate out those kids who honestly fear physical abuse from their parents, from those who just don’t want to be nagged or lose their car/tuition/spoiled perks.
In the end, I think that abusing your child is already illegal. We have laws to deal with that. Unfortunately we don’t have laws to protect teenage girls from making decisions that will haunt them for the rest of their lives.
You really won’t admit that even SOME girls will be saved from the nightmares they will have for the rest of their lives knowing they killed their own child?
Not changing the subject, simply injecting some clarification.
I guess we’re just going to be talking about different things then, as GPAs are essentially incomparable among differing schools with differing standards and different curricula. Just because you take them all and shove them into a four-point scale doesn’t make them similar.
If you were going to talk to me about AP tests or something you would have something comparable, but using GPAs just doesn’t tell you anything at all, except perhaps at the most basic level – i.e. who is completely failing to learn anything (and even that isn’t necessarily the case).
[quote]hspder wrote:
Your kids are not your employees. You do not feed them and provide them a roof expecting anything in return. You feed them and provide them with a roof because it’s your civil and moral obligation to do so, since you are responsible for bringing them to life.
Kids don’t ask to be born, and they certainly don’t pick their parents. And you want to have “rights” over them and their own children? For what?
That’s just screwed up.
[/quote]
No, my kids aren’t my employees. But they are my kids. And I have “rights” as a parent. I have the “right” to raise them how I see fit. I have the “right” to raise them based on my religious affiliation. I have the “right” to give them a home-schooled education if I view the public schools subpar in my area.
Are you telling me I should not have these “rights”? Because I do have these “rights” today. If I shouldn’t have these “rights”? Who should? The state? Or are you saying that kids have the capacity to be self-sustaining adults as soon as they get dropped out of the womb so they, in fact. should have all rights with parents having none?
They certainly don’t choose to be born. But the fact is, they are. And until they are grown adults, parents will continue to have “rights” over their children. Now I won’t argue the point that if I’m not a good parental steward and I abuse my kids, the state does have the right to take them away; there are exceptions to every rule. You can tell me this is screwed up all day, but the fact remains that I do have “rights” over my child. This is not a theoretical discussion, it’s reality.
Oh well. Being scared is a natural emotion. It still is not relevant when a 13 year old girl is making life and death decisions on her own. That’s what parents are for. To love and guide their kids. It’s called parental “rights”. See comments above.
There is NO good reason for a 13 year old girl to be making life and death decisions just because she’s scared of her parents reaction. That is a very weak argument. Give me a break.
I won’t argue that some parents are very screwed up. The exceptions to the rule, however, shouldn’t dictate the rule. Most parents are not screwed up. Therefore, parental “rights” should be upheld and they should know about their daughter’s planned abortion before it happens.
I’m sure a few will unfortunately. I’ll bet that most won’t however. Your letting the exceptions dictate the rule again. Obviously we will never see eye to eye on this issue because your under some delusion that “kids” have the mental, physical, and emotional faculties of an adult and therefore should have all the “rights” while parents have “none” to which I say is bullshit. Fortunately, a majority of parents out there feel the same way as me and greatly outnumber people like yourself.
[quote]doogie wrote:
irresponsible kids would cause. Each and every one of those girls were haunted by their choice to kill their child (by age 23).[/quote]
First of all, this prop is only for underage kids – so it would not apply to 23 year old women.
Second, what you are describing is the job of trained psychologists and counselors. But NOT of their parents – parents do not have to go through years of training and experience to have kids, and most of them are completely incompetent in many situations – including these.
Currently, although parents don’t have to be in the picture, trained people are. And their job is to help them, and they do.
It is not our job to judge them – it is our job to save them. Problem is, most parents don’t understand this, so it’s almost invariably better to leave this to people that do.
If this prop passes, many of the girls that would actually go to a qualified facility and maybe have their mind changed by a trained person, will now go to some hellhole and go through the procedure, with no-one to help them think about it, and endangering their lives in the process.
Trust me, this prop will in fact increase not only the number of girls dying on the table, it will increase rates of abortion.
[quote]randman wrote:
I’m sure a few will unfortunately. I’ll bet that most won’t however. Your letting the exceptions dictate the rule again. Obviously we will never see eye to eye on this issue because your under some delusion that “kids” have the mental, physical, and emotional faculties of an adult and therefore should have all the “rights” while parents have “none” to which I say is bullshit. Fortunately, a majority of parents out there feel the same way as me and greatly outnumber people like yourself.[/quote]
Fortunately for whom? For abusing, controlling parents? Yes. For the kids? No.
Kids do not have “the mental, physical, and emotional faculties of an adult”, no. I never said they did. Problem is that a lot of parents don’t either. A lot of parents – actually the majority of parents that have kids that get pregnant while they’re underage – are completely and utterly incompetent at positively influencing their kids. How can you possibly think that they’ll do a better job at convincing them that they should not undergo the procedure?
Do you even understand how a teenager’s mind works?
Do you even understand that in many cases some of these teenage girls are actually MORE mature and rational than their parents? Some parents have the mental age of a 5-year old…
And what makes you think some of these parents will not actually pressure the girls to go ahead with the abortion, rather than letting professionals help them see that it is, almost invariably, a choice they’ll regret for the rest of their lives?
This is, quite simply, about judgement and control. The people behind this Prop are judging these kids and want to have the illusion of greater control over them. It’s not about the kids’ welfare (and I mean both the girls and their unborn children), it’s about the parents’ ego.
