Friday, July 20, 2007

Couple of things

- I think the support of the parents, and their unwillingness to transfer to a new school, is further proof that some of these AYP standards are getting kinda silly. Also, No Child Left Behind requires they offer 'free tutoring' after a certain number of times not meeting AYP? I mean, seriously ... they've been doing that since they opened the doors folks.

- Local control? What local control?

- I shared some thoughts on the possible revisions to the alcohol ordinance, namely because while I do, as always, appreciate the hard work of the commission, I'm not exactly seeing eye-to-eye with some of the proposed changes.

- Hey! I covered Leigh Crosby, so kudos to her for making it to the quarterfinals.

- Seriously ... what is this local control you speak of?

- Nicki's got a little more on the 10th Congressional District.

- I'm not entirely in agreement with his overall philosophical approach to intervention in cases of genocide, but this is a strong explanation of Barack Obama's position on the matter. And, of course, the GOP trumps out the oldee but goodee by crying 'he's a flip-flopper!' Which, naturally, he isn't, but more importantly, with the field of presidential candidates Republicans have, you want to play that game? That's fine dude ... we'll see how far that gets you.

- It's appropriate his last name is 'Waters', isn't it?


Anonymous StoptheBS said...

I think the support of the parents, and their unwillingness to transfer to a new school, is further proof that some of these AYP standards are getting kinda silly.

I wouldn't read too much into the fact that parents don't transfer their students to other schools.

First, it is highly problematic that most of the parents fully understand that they have the right to do so. I haven't seen the letter that was sent out this year, but the letter sent out last year was a bureaucratic tome sent to the parents in the middle of the summer. Also, if I recall, (and I may be incorrect on this), the right to transfer is subject to "available space".

Next, if the parent transfers the child, the parent becomes responsible for the transportation of the child. That right there is enough to convince many parents that "their" school is "A-o.k." This fact is one of the few things that are clearly stated in the letter home.

Finally, as Dr. Tommie, principal of Cedar Shoals says in so many words, when all your choices suck equally, what's the point.

I support public schools and I'm no fan of vouchers, but in the "what if" category, you have to wonder what would be the parental response if students could transfer to a private school or even another public system, with the home system having to provide transportation.

Given these factors, parents not exercising their right to transfer their children is nothing for a system to crow about.


Moving on, the proposed alcohol ordinance revision is another heavy handed attempt by our incumbent utopians to micromanage other people's business. And it is further evidence of the love-hate relationship of the ACC government with alcohol sales. Not to be overlooked is the fact that all of the "revisions" enhance government revenues.

I am surprised with how comfortable local folks are, and the elected ones especially, with the idea of the government setting retail prices (or wholesale ones for that matter). If there is a problem with late night drinking (and there is), why not just close the bars earlier? Uhhhh, maybe because that has a negative impact on government revenues. Oh, and we're not going to allow bars to cut prices after 11:00--what is going to be the obvious response to this? The 10:45 HAPPY HOUR SPECIAL

Likewise, I agree with you about brown bagging. It really doesn't show up on my list of ten critical threats to civilization in ACC. Of course it does let people evade that heavy sales tax on poured drinks, which is probably perceived as a societal issue of a high order by some of our officials. This change also is punitive toward some merchants who because of other actions of the commissioners, are prohibited from acquiring a pouring license (Mama's Boy).

I'm trying to understand where ACC is going with the doorman thing. As far as I can see, it falls directly into the "feel good" category. My impression is that this is one of the many service positions where there is a high turnover. So who is going to do all this training, and registration and monitoring of doormen and servers, and where is the money coming from to pay for all this? Requiring citizens to get a police permit to engage in lawful employment is an open invitation to litigation. One has to wonder exactly what in one's background would disqualify one from being a bar bouncer. How timely will these background checks be? Wouldn't police services be better spent trying to maintain control of the downtown area after midnight? This particular provision is just so much expensive window dressing.

9:44 AM  
Blogger Xon said...

Not all the GOP candidates are flip-floppring hypocrites. Just sayin'... :-)

10:13 AM  
Blogger Mike-El said...

I was hoping for something Floyd-related with the "Waters" item.

Have a good weekend.

10:13 AM  
Blogger Jmac said...

I will give you that. Ron Paul is, if nothing else, consistent.

You libertarian-lovin' fool.

10:18 AM  
Blogger Nicki said...

On various stuff...

NCLB is idiotic. And this article indicates how idiotic it is. When the population you are given is poor, is disenfranchised in general, is highly mobile, and is coming from parents who are illiterate or minimally educated themselves, it is VERY DIFFICULT to educate. However, that same population is also very unlikely to take advantage of the remedies offered by NCLB because they can't afford to or don't actually value education to the extent that they distinguish a difference in quality from one provider to another. So it's a joke, or more accurately it's a system which is very classist. The remedies are not meaningful to the citizens who are most likely to attend failing schools.

Alcohol...I want Athens to return to what it was once upon a time. Which is to say a very late allowable closing time. I suspect this would be the best thing for the town because it would decrease drunk driving. I don't see any point in legislating something that should be up to the individual owner unless it has a very real and compelling correlation to safety, and I don't feel that discounted drinks fall into that category.

Re: I agree with Waters, in general, but the problem is simply the lack of a holistic policy.

10:32 AM  
Blogger Josh said...

The Fifth Quarter ruined everything.

9:03 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home