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: 11 Nov 92 04:36:59 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Nov09.225357.13686@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:

>fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
>: In <1992Nov06.234107.27197@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:
>: >The solution to this is to raise the standards and not graduate them.
>: 
>: Correct, but most schools can't or won't do that to a football star
>: (apparently thinking the way you are).

>It seems to me that if a school would let their standards slide for a "football
>star", they would also let "no pass-no play" slide as well.  So what is gained?

Oh come now, John.  You can't see the difference between something a
school has the choice of doing and something that is mandated and
enforced by an outside agency that has no interest in that particular
school's success or lack thereof on the gridiron?

>: >The solution to this is to have different levels of classes for the slow
>: >learners and the fast learners.
>: 
>: Correct AGAIN (see, you can do it if you put your mind to it and stop
>: knee-jerk disagreeing with things just because *I* happen to be the
>: one to post them).

>You know better than that.  I agree with you at least 10% of the time :-)

>: However, what kind of classes do you put in place
>: for NO learners so that they can continue to play football?

>The same classes that you put in place for "NO learners" who DON'T play football
>of course.

Yeah, well I don't think they should have those, either.  But the
world operates by costs and rewards, John.  Hell, the whole
libertarian philsophy is based on that, insofar as how you seem to
expect the world ought to work.  I just don't see how you can make
sense of your position on this issue in that setting.

>: Sure it does.  That's why they came up with No Pass - No Play in the
>: first place.  They looked at the numbers and noted that as a group,
>: football players had a predominant percentage of the folks who just
>: weren't making it academically.

>I don't believe this.  I think it was more likely done for a punitive effect.
>The problem with negative reinforcement is that it rarely has the effect that
>you want it to.

I don't think so, but even if it was, what is wrong with giving kids
an incentive to do better?  It's just like the incentives in the
libertarian system; if you want to eat you have to earn money to buy
food.  Isn't that sort of punitive in effect, to encourage people to
work and earn?

>This brings up a good question.  Has "no pass-no play" been shown to have a 
>positive effect on grades or standardized tests?  I honestly don't know the 
>answer to that.

I don't think you can isolate it out from the other measures that were
put in place at the same time, but if the question is whether or not
the schools have done better (gauging by the things you mention
above), then the answer is yes.  Of course, causality can't be shown
because those measures weren't enacted in a vacuum.  Other things were
put in place as part of the same reforms.

>: Oh, hogwash, John.  Every journey starts with a single step, and you
>: can't clean up a mess without picking up that first piece of trash.
>: Allowing (and paying for) participation in EXTRA-CURRICULAR activities
>: by those who are failing the CURRICULAR activities is like rewarding
>: someone for failing.

>Only if you consider extra-curricular activities to be rewards.  I
>don't.

Just what DO you consider them, then, that justifies having them?

>: Where's all that libertarian motivation in the
>: free market and such they[sic] you like so much in your reasoning on this
>: one? 

>You have a strange definition of liberty if you think this is it.

No, I have a strange definition for how libertopia is supposed to work
and why it would, based on what various libertarians, yourself
included, have told me.  Liberty that impacts me (based on the effect
on people who I am paying money to educate) is a violation of your
libertarian ideals, is it not?  Yet you stand up for their right to do
this. 

>: Fine, I'll make a counter proprosition for you.  Simply eliminate all
>: extra-curricular activities for everyone.  If they want them, they can
>: do them on their own time, their own money, and find their own
>: facilities.  You like that 'solution' better?  I don't,

>Of course you don't -- because then you wouldn't be able to use it as a 
>bargaining chip in your "motivational experiment".

No, I don't like it because I consider it unfair to those who ARE
managing the curriculum, and those extra-curricular activities can be
regarded as a reward of sorts.  Elimination of all extra-curricular
activities because some people who engage in them can't be expected to
perform the PRIMARY purpose for which they are in school and because
John Iacoletti is against simply excluding THOSE people from
participation while allowing everyone else who DOES do what is
expected of them to participate smacks of mass punishment.

-- 
"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.