Jambun82
-
Posts
1,272 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
24
Posts posted by Jambun82
-
-
7 hours ago, Ray Icaza said:
HEAR EVERDAY?? Where, in your imagination. Almost all newspaper media in FL are owned by McClatchy, Chicago-Tribune, Poynter Media and Gannett which feed us as you refer to it " Left-Winged BS". Local TV networks are more of the same. So please, spare us the hysteria.
Ray, both you and I know that you are 100% correct. I also know how exasperating it can be trying to explain and get your point across to some of these people. You always have someone who thinks very highly of what you have to say in me. (Even if you don't care for me very much.)
-
5 hours ago, Perspective said:
Dr D, I don't have the time right now to read through the report, so I am in no position to challenge the findings or the report. I was curious, however, about who or what the Center for Research on Education Outcomes is and, more importantly, where they get their funding. It didn't take me long to see that this particular report (the one you've cited above) got its funding from The Walton Family Foundation and The City Fund.
With respect to the Walton Family Foundation, its own website says this: "The Walton Family Foundation was one of the first philanthropies to support the expansion of high-quality public charter schools. John Walton — who pioneered this work — believed charter schools could provide options and opportunities and fuel needed innovation in America's schools."
And with respect to The City Fund, it reportedly "uses over $100 million in grants to grow charter and charter-like schools" (See https://www.chalkbeat.org/2020/2/21/21178789/a-major-new-player-in-education-giving-the-city-fund-uses-over-100-million-in-grants-to-grow-charter).
Again, I'm not in a position to challenge the findings, but at first blush, this appears to be one of those situations where data was collected and analyzed and the findings just happened to match up with the goals of those who funded the study.
Just remember what they say: There are three types of lies -- lies, damn lies, and statistics.
My shoot-from-the-hip concern is that a state-funded charter school system will ultimately lead to a tiered educational system where the 'haves' continue to prosper and the 'have-nots' continue to flounder and the chasm between the two grows wider and wider over time.
Of course, you would have this kind of response Pinstripes. Are the teacher's unions one of your clients, Pinstripes? AFT, NEA, or both Pinstripes?
-
22 hours ago, Ray Icaza said:
This news outlet like many around the state have made claims that have proven to be erroneous so forgive me if I am skeptical of their take. Only time will really tell us how this all shakes out.
Taxpayer-funded employees of the public school system are upset because they no longer have a monopoly on Education. Parents have choices now, and they can't stand that fact.
-
4 minutes ago, Ray Icaza said:
If this particular post was really about concern for the "State of Athletics", none of your analysis regarding costs, scholarships, school size, etc... matter when the unfair competitive advantage is staring you in the face. Restricting access to a better education will do nothing to fix the mess we are already in. For "Education Reason", parents should be able to decide how to use their tax dollars for the school of their choice. If we had separate leagues and simply re-instituted the 1 year waiting period for athletic participation at out of zone public, it would eliminate the vast majority of questionable transfers.
Great points as usual, Ray.
-
13 minutes ago, ExplorerHomer2 said:
I don't know, man but you sound like a real dick.
I know this forum is slow this time of year, but your schtick is tiring.
Yeah, just remember that you support a private school that I believe is all-boys, so you don't need to say anything about public schools and complaining about being treated unfairly. What I post on this message board is not a schtick, it is absolute facts and truth, not that I have to explain myself to you anyway. If you have a problem with what I post, you can ignore me and never speak to me or about me ever again.
-
3 hours ago, Perspective said:
Why would I want to move somewhere else when I can live rent-free in your head?
Pinstripes, if you moved to one of the other states, the great accomplishments being done in the Free State of Florida to put parents and children's rights before teacher's unions and leftist ambulance chasers desires would not live "rent free in your head" Big Shot.
-
10 hours ago, Perspective said:
Thank you, Ray. That's helpful.
Generally speaking, I think I understand the idea of "school choice." In simple terms, it means that any kid can attend any school that he wants to, regardless of what district he lives in. I'm sure there are some limitations, but that's it in a nutshell, right? And, as I understand it, while a kid can attend any school he wants to, the school district is only responsible for transportation if the student attends the school in his district. And, while the law of unintended consequences may come into play, the concept of school choice appears to be a general concept and not some nefarious creation developed so that certain high schools in the state can obtain or maintain dominance in sports such as football.
So how do "vouchers" fit into the school choice equation? If I have a kid zoned for a particular public school and I "choose" to send him elsewhere, for whatever reasons, I would receive a voucher (i.e, money) from the state/county (which one?). Does this apply if I send him to another public school in the district or only a private/charter school? If I send him to a private school, I then have to turn around and use the voucher money to pay tuition. What about charter schools? How are they funded? Tuition? Or do parents have to sign over their voucher money to the charter schools?
Ray, I know that sometimes, in a forum like this, asking questions is a way to make an argument. However, in this case, for each questions asked above, I am truly interested in getting an answer.
With regard to your question at the end, I will accept your premise that there are public schools that are indeed failing us. To that end, people need to be held accountable and if the failure persists, changes need to be made. Administrators and teachers need to be replaced if they can't do their jobs. I'm not sure I buy into the idea that whenever a government-operated system like the education system is failing, the answer is to immediately privatize it (especially if the government is still going to be paying for it indirectly instead of directly). Would this also apply to police services? Fire services? Trash collection and disposal? Water? Libraries? Road maintenance?
Ray, I appreciate your willingness to engage in constructive dialogue on this issue.
Pinstripes: Colorado, Oregon, Washington, (State and D.C.) Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maryland, Wisconsin, Hawaii, and the "dementia" state of Delaware are all excepting new residents, Big Shot.
-
6 hours ago, Ray Icaza said:
Sorry to disagree that even public schools are NOT FREE and more problematic is they aren't created equal either. As an old retiree with no kids or grandkids (youngest just graduated) from HS, my ad valorem taxes haven't gone away rather keep creeping up and a big chunk is for schools. My daughter and son-in-law moved out of Kissimmee to the east side of St. Cloud over a decade ago so their two daughters would attend the highest rated (academic) public HS in Osceola County, Harmony HS. Both graduated at the top of their class, but if the programs in place today for school choice were available back then, they may have taken their voucher $$$ and put them in a private school requiring no move. That is the difference between then and now. More parents are taking advantage of this benefit mostly for academic and other reasons outside of sports, but if that choice involves a school with no sports program, they have an alternative . Yes, lots do it for sports also, but I completely agree with you that EDUCATION should be at the forefront of this conversation and I believe it is the impetus for these changes.
Ray, I know that you have a deep hatred for me, but I really appreciate you contributions to this message board.
-
5 hours ago, Perspective said:
So, I need someone to help me out: as I understand it (from a bird's eye view), the government (state or county??) is going to provide vouchers for families who choose for their kids to attend a private school instead of a public school, right? But there is a limited amount of money that can/will be spent on education. County school boards try as hard as they can to stay ahead of the development and growth. Developers are required to set aside land (or at least give the school board the opportunity to negotiate for the purchase of land) before single-family houses can be permitted. OK. That makes sense.
But don't the schools have to be built with the assumption that every kid in the new neighborhood will be going to the public school (because that could happen)? And the cost of the land and the cost of building a school (and all the facilities that go along with it, such as gyms, football fields, baseball and softball fields, etc.) are, for the most part, fixed costs. If a school board buys the land and then builds a new high school with the expectation that 2,000 kids will attend (using the taxpayer money that is needed to build that facility), but then only 1,200 show up, will that same taxpayer-supported school board then have to provide vouchers so the other 800 can attend private school? The government (i.e., the taxpayers) will then be paying for both the public school system and the private school system. How is that economically feasible?
I'm not looking for an argument; just an explanation.
Here is an explanation Pinstripes: California, New York, Illinois, and Minnesota are always looking for new residents, Big Shot.
-
12 hours ago, Perspective said:
Flag on the play! Personal foul . . . using two different nicknames in the same sentence. I can either be "Pinstripes" or a "Big shot," but not both in the same sentence. 15 yards from the spot of the foul and loss of down.
Incorrect PINSTRIPES-THE BIG SHOT, a personal foul is NOT a loss-of-down foul. That would be an unsportsmanlike-conduct foul anyway, not a personal foul, which is also not a loss-of-down foul, and cannot be penalized from the spot of the foul, since it is a dead-ball enforcement PINSTRIPES-THE BIG SHOT! Your education continues, and you're welcome for that, PINSTRIPES-THE BIG SHOT!
-
On 5/24/2023 at 9:25 AM, Perspective said:
Without opening up a political Pandora's Box, can anyone here offer up an explanation as to what prompted these changes? In other words, and other than a private Christian school not being able to say a prayer over the loudspeaker before a playoff game, what happened that caused the lawmakers to feel that SB 225 was needed?
Big shot, why don't you contact your local lawmaker and find out, Pinstripes?
-
On 5/24/2023 at 7:28 AM, PinellasFB said:
Man I don't think I liked a single change and I am usually open minded about change. I don't understand the need for any of these changes and how are they possibly good for any public school? FL HS football has some rules I wished they would address and modernize like the excessively penal holding call that gets enforced from the spot of the foul in the backfield instead of from the LOS. I even talked to refs who all hate to give a 15-20 yard penalty for a 10 yard infraction. Anyway, this bill is typical politician shit where they solve non-problems and ignore the actual real problems.
Edit: Well lo and behold, a quick google search shows they actually did finally fix this excessive penalty. Nice! https://www.nfhs.org/articles/changes-in-basic-spot-for-penalty-enforcement-headline-2023-high-school-football-rules-changes/
Edit 2: Since this was a national HS football rule change, does that mean FL will automatically accept it?
Yes PinellasFB, that will be one of the rule changes for 2023 in Florida High School Football.
-
10 hours ago, Dan in Daytona said:
Almost didn't recognize the Legend...trim, alert, well groomed, youthful smile. It's been a decade since my last encounter. He looks like he could easily do 20..25 more. I thought he'd have been enticed ($$$) by now to come home to Polk county to replace another Hall of famer and keep that juggernaut over there sailing along. I'm starting a funding drive here on the East Coast with area coaching contributions quickly adding up. Not that he too isn't loved over here, but we just think with our blessing he would be happier over there. Now that Dade has been legislated out of the way there's no need for any unnecessary bumps in the road.
Are you talking about Rick Darlington at Deland? The Green and Gold Bulldogs are going to get some things accomplished this season, I believe. The Blue and Gold Buccaneers are going to have some very positive situations this year as well, I also believe.
-
3 hours ago, Perspective said:
I will say this Jambun, your unfaltering humility never ceases to amaze me.
Thank you Pinstripes, could you imagine if I had a big ego and showed arrogance Pinstripes? I have always believed in showing humility and staying humble Pinstripes.
-
11 hours ago, Perspective said:
I could be wrong, but I think the referee that Pat Riley is "talking" to is disgraced NBA official Tim Donaghy and the umpire (in both of the other two pictures) is Angel Hernandez, known for his bad calls. In other words, I think Bad Bird is suggesting that he'd rank Jambun right up there with those two notoriously bad umpires/officials.
You know Pinstripes, since I know that people in your profession are known to have big egos, and your big ego just cannot let you admit that you might learn something from someone who wears a black and white shirt. The fact is it has been a distinct honor and privilege of yours to learn and be educated by someone like me. I know deep down that you look forward to what I have to say, and you always think that "that Jambun82 really knows what he is talking about, and I am lucky to be exposed to his knowledge and wisdom" You should be thanking me, and I will say you're welcome Pinstripes. I might even be willing to provide you with a autograph someday Pinstripes!
-
8 hours ago, badbird said:
you could eject me but that wouldn't change the fact that you still suck
I just might show up at your friend's Spring Scrimmage tomorrow evening and lay the law down!
-
15 hours ago, badbird said:
I'd put your auto right next to these guys
You would know how I handle coaches very quickly badbird.
-
13 hours ago, DarterBlue2 said:
He sucks, but most officials try to do a good job. They do it out of love at the high school level, as compensation could not be the motive given its paucity.
I suck? C'Mon DarterBlue, i thought that we were friends? Is it because i told you to tell Warren Sapp that Sam Wyche was a great football coach? Let's not forget all of the lessons that I have provided you over the years.
-
-
10 hours ago, badbird said:
Columbiafan leaving killed this site
. Unfortunately not enough interest in high school sports in the state of Florida. It's sad but that's reality. Good luck with whatever you do. I've enjoyed meeting people on sites like this and talking football.
I know how much of an honor and privilege that it was for you to meet and learn from me badbird. You're very welcome for that honor and privilege.
-
1 hour ago, ExplorerHomer2 said:
And I'm sure a number of posters on this forum who loved the ACA felt quite righteous calling it "Obamacare" . And if you don't know what ACA stands for, then my point is made. It's all politics. Hypocrisy and politics. And this is a football forum. So let's get off our high horse and drop the politics.
And Ray, this point isn't to you in particular. Jam included.
No, most of us who know what the UCA, Not ACA, bill really was about called it "Obummer" care.
-
-
8 minutes ago, Ray Icaza said:
That title even repeated 609 million times clearly misrepresents the law and though using that phrase the big article on FOX on March 8, 2022 states the following, quote: "Democrats misleadingly call it the Don't Say Gay Bill. Here's what's actually in the legislation". Whether one agrees with it or not isn't the point, but rather the characterization happily regurgitated by probably 98% of all media. And yes, I do prefer to talk about HS football which hopefully will pick up interest with the beginning of spring practices (04/25)!
Great Point Ray. Then again, you make a lot of great points and observations. That is why you are a very welcome presence on this message board, and one of the most respected people who posts.
-
1 hour ago, Perspective said:
Jambun, how's your one-man "Don't Say 'Don't Say Gay'" Campaign going? Did you get your letters or emails out to NPR, Time Magazine, the Tallahassee Democrat, Fox News, the NEA, the AP, all the Fox TV affiliates and all the other media outlets that have used, and continue to use, the "Don't Say Gay" term when talking about the Parental Rights in Education Bill? This issue obviously concerns you a great deal -- why else would you accuse a man of lying and misrepresenting things for simply using that term in a joking way?
In any event, and unless you continue to throw false accusations my way, I'm done with this topic. I'll try my best not to use the term "Don't Say Gay" in this high school football forum when talking about the Parental Rights in Education Bill because, obviously, the term "Don't Say Gay" triggers you.
Pinstripes, just call the bill by its correct name, The Parental Rights in Education Bill, and that will end this "discussion." This is very reasonable on my part as, deep down, I know that you will 100% agree Pinstripes.
Who Are Your Contenders & Dark Horses For Metro & Suburban?
in The Huddle
Posted
It is like talking to a brick wall Ray. Pinstripes is no F. Lee Bailey, Johnny Cochran, or Clarence Darrow, that is for sure.