Collaboration??

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, Jerry Okamura wrote:

>
>
> "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:1065909904-sch@news.lava.net...
> >
> > On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Jerry Okamura wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > In other words, your position is, if someone
> > > calls something a "success" then by definition it
> > > is a "success"? And that all of us who read such
> > > articles, should act like automatons, and accept
> > > that fact?
> >
> > No. I mean we shouldn't doubt whether they are
> > "happy" or not. They have have their own meansure
> > of success, and that has been satisfied.
> >
> So, if any special interest group, or any news
> organization says that something is a success,
> espeically when you strongly disagree with that
> conclusion, are we to believe that you would consider
> it a success because someone said it was.

News organizations just report what are the results?
How can I disagree with the conclusion if I have no
facts of my own to show that the news reporters are
mis-reporting the conclusion, or that the source of the
conclusion is lying??? Certainly, I can object to the
conclusion, but this is a difference of opinion-- and
as you claim there is always at least two sides to any
question no matter what the facts are??

> > > How do we know if we changed the dynamics of the
> > > debate and start talking about the critical
> > > importance of the parents in their childs
> > > education, that we could not see a dramatic
> > > change in the attitudes of parents. And if I am
> > > right, a big improvement in the education of the
> > > child. What is the goal here?
> >
> > Optimistic aren't you? Any action the schools can
> > take has to be purely voluntary on the part of the
> > parents. And suppose parents with kids in trouble
> > choose not to be accessible or cooperative?? How
> > can you change their attitudes if you can't even
> > talk with them?
> >
> Actually, I am not very optimistic, as long as the
> debate on how to improve our system of education is
> focused on those steps that people believe will
> achieve the results we are all seeking.

Perhaps you should clarify this? Neither am I
optimistic when Lingle chooses not to collaborate on
something like education that she and the legislature
both agree that needs some improvement.

--alvin

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Jerry Okamura wrote:

> "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:1066609209-sch@news.lava.net...
> >
> >
> > What is your definition of "power"? I don't see
> > that the state constitution requires the media or
> > the legislature to manage the schools. Only the
> > administration is accountable for what is done, or
> > not done, in the schools.
>
> Now you are really getting silly. No one told the
> States that they should provide for the education of
> our children, that is what legislators decided to do
> a long time ago.

The Fed Constitution does not mandate schools. But our
concern here is the STATE Consitution. The governor is
empowered to allocate the money. Hence she is
accountable. It's not a "silly" question as to who is
to blame.

> pushing a string through a hole. You can hold the
> school administration as accountable as you wish, but
> if parents do not take an active role in their
> childrens education, nothing will change. It seems
> to me, you are more interested in finding excuses for
> the failures and not wanting to really solve the
> problem.

Jerry. The State cannot make laws to require good
parenting. Being realistic is NOT "finding excuses".

> I sometimes feel we are in another one of those
> circular discussions. If charter schools work, it is
> because of one fundamental reason. Those who made
> that decision, have already decided that their
> childrens education is important. So, if they are
> successful, that to me means, that the parents are
> concerned about their childrens education. If they
> would spend an equal amount of effort when their
> children attended public schools, they may find that
> the public school system can do just as good a job.

Jerry when we talk of "fixing schools", what we mean is
that we try to fix problems. It's kind of obvious that
these kids we mention could succeed in a lot of
different environments.

It's the kids with problems that these special schools
try to address. The charter schools are meant to
address a narrow aspect of administration. Say the
charter schools that the Bishop Estate will sponsor
will primarity be concerned with children who want to
go to college. Children who are not that gifted may
drop out and go into a regular curiculum. Aren't they
also into introducing Hawaiian culture also as a way to
gain an appreciation for teachers and a respect for
learning?? The parents want a strong board to
micromanage the school to make sure it is running as
it's charter envisions.

--alvin

"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1066733412-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>

> >
> > Now you are really getting silly. No one told the
> > States that they should provide for the education of
> > our children, that is what legislators decided to do
> > a long time ago.
>
> The Fed Constitution does not mandate schools. But our
> concern here is the STATE Consitution. The governor is
> empowered to allocate the money. Hence she is
> accountable. It's not a "silly" question as to who is
> to blame.

Does the State Constitution require that the State provide for the education
of the children. Are we in another one of those circular discussions again?
And you keep coming back to the subject of money, as if money is going to
solve the problem. And I keep saying that you can throw all the money you
want at education and it still will not solve the perceived problem.
>
> > pushing a string through a hole. You can hold the
> > school administration as accountable as you wish, but
> > if parents do not take an active role in their
> > childrens education, nothing will change. It seems
> > to me, you are more interested in finding excuses for
> > the failures and not wanting to really solve the
> > problem.
>
> Jerry. The State cannot make laws to require good
> parenting. Being realistic is NOT "finding excuses".
>
> > I sometimes feel we are in another one of those
> > circular discussions. If charter schools work, it is
> > because of one fundamental reason. Those who made
> > that decision, have already decided that their
> > childrens education is important. So, if they are
> > successful, that to me means, that the parents are
> > concerned about their childrens education. If they
> > would spend an equal amount of effort when their
> > children attended public schools, they may find that
> > the public school system can do just as good a job.
>
> Jerry when we talk of "fixing schools", what we mean is
> that we try to fix problems. It's kind of obvious that
> these kids we mention could succeed in a lot of
> different environments.

Of course they can. But the simple fact is, that their chances of success
is greatly increased if parents take a more active role in their childrens
education.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Jerry Okamura wrote:

> "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:1066733412-sch@news.lava.net...
> >
> > The Fed Constitution does not mandate schools. But
> > our concern here is the STATE Consitution. The
> > governor is empowered to allocate the money. Hence
> > she is accountable. It's not a "silly" question as
> > to who is to blame.
>
> Does the State Constitution require that the State
> provide for the education of the children. Are we in
> another one of those circular discussions again? And
> you keep coming back to the subject of money, as if
> money is going to solve the problem. And I keep
> saying that you can throw all the money you want at
> education and it still will not solve the perceived
> problem.

It's only circular if you have no focus on what is the
question. You have an answer, but I don't think you
know the question.

> > Jerry when we talk of "fixing schools", what we
> > mean is that we try to fix problems. It's kind of
> > obvious that these kids we mention could succeed in
> > a lot of different environments.
>
> Of course they can. But the simple fact is, that
> their chances of success is greatly increased if
> parents take a more active role in their childrens
> education.

Again is the question these kids who can succeed in
various environment with the strong support of parents,
or is the question those kids that are failing or who
are short of meeting standards?

--alvin