From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Football Failures at Bowie Force end of Season
Date: 15 Nov 92 16:51:12 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Nov13.004832.24209@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:

>fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
>: Well, I meant for you to tell me what YOU think one would be, but
>: never mind.  You seem to be asserting, since I "introduced the term"
>: that there is no such thing.

>Not at all.  I just didn't know what you meant by "good citizen".

Then why were you claiming that I "introduced the term".  Would you
also complain of my introduction of the definite article, for
instance? 

>:                                  He (or she) would be self-sufficient,
>: believe in taking care of themself and taking responsibility for
>: themself, be informed about what is going on around them, how things
>: work, and where the people they have the opportunity to vote for stand
>: on the issues, believe in standing up for themself and what they
>: believe, and quite a number of other things.

>See how easy that was?  It didn't even take up "volumes".  Why couldn't you
>have just done this to begin with?

Because, since it is absolutely a simplistic and incomplete definition
(which is why it didn't take up volumes), we will now probably see
dozens of notes asking "Well, what about X?" and nitpicking about this
or that or the other.  See what dealing with this group does?

>: I find it interesting
>: that this is such a foreign concept to you that you don't even
>: understand the term.

>I think the term is mainly a matter of taste.  It's like trying to define
>what a "good meal" is.  What I'm trying to point out is that the rest of
>us may not agree with your definition of "good citizen", and may not want
>to support instilling those values in the public schools.

I know what you're 'trying to point out'.  That's why I didn't want to
even get into it, since philosophers have spent LIFETIMES studying
this sort of thing.  The sort of bickering and nit-picking to be
expected at this point is simply stupid, which is why I resisted
playing the game in the first place.

Tell you what.  Let's just shoot all the little bastards, and then we
won't have to worry about it.

>: Well, try looking at it as a model of the free market, John.  Things
>: have associated costs, and the cost of doing extra-curricular
>: activities is adequacy at the curricular ones.  What you seem to
>: support is a sort of 'welfare' within this model, where the
>: extra-curricular activities 'come free'.

>I think we have a fundamental difference which is fueling this whole debate.
>I don't make much of a distinction between learning say calculus vs. learning
>football, other than that they are different things to learn.  I think that
>both skills have value in their own realms and people should have the freedom
>to pursue whatever they are interested in and can excel in.  If they fail,
>they pick up and try something else.  There's no shame in failing.  There is
>shame in not being allowed to try.

I think the fundamental difference is that you see school as 'real
life', rather than as part of the learning and training for it.  The
idea behind school is to TRY and prepare people with some of the
skills they are likely to need.  Given the odds, they aren't likely to
need football skills, WHICH IS WHY IT ISN'T PART OF THE CURRICULUM.

>:                                         Take a class of 20 in which
>: everyone is at least passing.  Is it your contention that I can toss
>: in 10 people who AREN'T getting the material and who are flunking and
>: that that has no impact at all on the amount of time that the teacher
>: can give to each student (the poor ones require more time), the speed
>: at which material can be presented (the poor ones require you to go
>: slower), and any number of other things?  

>I believe so.  In my experience, the people who weren't interested in learning
>the material would either skip class, or if they were forced to attend, they
>would just ignore the teacher and daydream.  Especially if the teacher evicted
>anyone who was being disruptive.

She can't do that.  Then they wouldn't be able to play football.  I
think your view on how this impacts the school and the other students
is unrealistic in the extreme.

>: Hmmm.  Ok.  Give me back my money and you can let them play football
>: to their heart's content.  I can spend the money on ammunition and
>: shoot the little bastards when they come to rob me because they have
>: no skills or experience at learning any (except football).

>Now we're getting somewhere!  You're starting to come around.

No, I'm not.  It's simply that given a choice between two totally bad
ideas, I choose the best lizard in the race.

>: >: Silly me.  Obviously if someone is getting good grades they
>: >: are learning SOMETHING, even if it's only how to get over on tests.
>: 
>: >Or how to cheat, or how to bribe the teacher, or ...
>: 
>: I'm curious, John.  What would your reaction be if I wrote the way you
>: have been?

>I am very serious.  It seems to me that people take the path of least
>resistance.  If they aren't interested in learning the subject of whatever 
>class they have to pass in order to do what they want, I think they are 
>very likely to do whatever they have to to get by.  And there are a lot of
>things that are easier than studying and mastering the material.

Until you get caught.  Just like stealing is an easier way to make a
living than working is.  Hey, you're the guy who's into letting them
make their own choices and live with the consequences.  

>: Gee, paint us some more of this wonderful world you espouse, John.  So
>: far, I don't like it much.

>I think liberty is the most important thing we have.  The freedom to live our
>lives the way we choose.  What you are advocating is prior restraint:  "you
>can't pursue a football career, because we think you will become a criminal".

Horseshit.

>: The relevance is that you said that teaching these things stopped in
>: elementary school.

>No, I said that they are not taught in high school.  Maybe you need to read
>more carefully.

And maybe you do.  I also said quite explicitly that they ARE taught
in at least some high schools.

>: Oh, speaking of which, I'm curious.  What explanation do you have for
>: the lower test scores and higher drop-out rate in Texas?

>I don't think it's the previous absence of no pass-no play, because I don't
>think most other states have it either.  If I had to guess, I would say that
>the students just don't value what is being taught.

I suspect you're quite wrong about what 'most other states' have, at
least insofar as what sorts of policies the schools use.  Shall we run
a little poll of the people here and see just who has experience with
it and who doesn't, and then look at the state of the schools in those
states?  Southern states tend to have worse school systems than
Northern or Western states (for a number of reasons).  So let's see if
we see any evidence of possible correlations between no-pass/no-play
and the quality of schools (other than the evidence here in Texas,
which shows rising scores since it was enacted along with other
reforms).

Schools I've had experience with in both Kansas and Colorado
effectively had 'no pass/no play' rules in effect, as well as schools
run by the military in the Far East.  Anyone else?

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.