Slashdot Mirror
Bug Means High School Students' Schedule Errors May Last Days
Hugh Pickens writes "The Washington Post reports that thousands of high school students in Prince George's County missed a third day of classes Wednesday, and school officials said it could take more than a week to sort out the chaos caused by a computerized class-scheduling system as students were placed in gyms, auditoriums, cafeterias, libraries and classes they didn't want or need at high schools across the county and their parents' fury over the logistical nightmare rose. 'The school year comes up the same time every year,' said Carolyn Oliver, the mother of a 16-year-old senior who spent Wednesday in the senior lounge at Bowie High School. 'When I heard they didn't have schedules, I was like, "What have they been doing all summer?"' When school opened Monday, about 8,000 high school students had no class schedules and were sent to wait in holding spaces while administrators tried to sort things out." (More below.)
I understand that there might be some concern with unleashing all these teenagers on the unsuspecting public, but after all they have been home all summer, so making them stay there for another couple of days while they get all this sorted out doesn't seem like that big of a deal. Nothing good can come of packing a bunch of teenagers into one room with nothing to do (and especially no air conditioning!). At the high school I went to, there would have been at least 2 fights on the first day of such an arrangement, and it would have gone downhill from there.
Oh yeah, and don't most schools have their administrators, and usually the teachers, report in at least a week before school starts? Wouldn't that have been a perfect time to conduct audits and make sure everything was ready for the students to arrive?
What does this teenage-Randian rant have to do with the parent comment? The article asks what schools were doing all summer, and the comment is that they were not working, because they weren't employed. Your argument that they shouldn't have ever been employed because omg RON PAUL isn't actually relevant to that point.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
the major draw of high school isn't so much learning more as it is socializing with other teens.
Yup. Gotta love socializing with teens. It does wonders for your maturity when you have to interact with adults...
Incidentally (previous paragraph was sarcastic, btw), I was homeschooled. It's interesting to me that "no social life!!!!11" was one of the major "what, you were homeschooled?" reactions when I went to a junior college for two years. It would appear that "learning" takes second place to "fun" and "social life." Apparently, education is secondary to teenage social skills when it comes to business after college.
http://xkcd.com/327/ That fuckin' kid. :|
Actually I believe in many areas, schools are funded by property taxes, which not everyone pays.
When it comes to property taxes, if you want the government-run police to enforce your government-issued deed to your home (on land whose ownership chain rests on some sort of government conquest), I don't think you have much philosophical basis for objecting to paying up. If you want to play the property game, ante up and pay your taxes.
And think it's awfully rare for them to point guns at you for back taxes, unless you're engaging in some sort of fraud. They just seize your bank accounts. If you don't have enough in your bank accounts, they might seize stock assets (in corporations created by government charter) or real estate assets (see above). But the days of capitation taxes, where the government comes along and says "pay me $20 a head or go to jail", are long over.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I guess reading the summary is hard, where it's stated they spent $4.1 million on the system. And if you look at the linked website for the company, it looks to be a private company based in Arizona, not anywhere near where the district is.
So... Yay?
On the specific subject of vouchers, the obviousy right answer is for everyone to divide the cost of the fixed overhead for schools, but for parents to have the option of a voucher for the per-student cost. That works out well for everyone, so you'll never see it in action.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
That is some seriously fucked up shit.
If your wife's life is that valuable to you (and I don't doubt that it is), the solution is not to throw firepower into the mess, it's to get her out of it. I fully support the second amendment but brining a gun into any school, not matter how "low-income," is about the dumbest thing I've ever head.
Of course, the scheduling was fine until they replaced the government system they'd been using with a privatized system.
But, hey, don't let mere facts get in the way of your political opinions. I understand you might not have time to read even the summary when you have to be worried about Obama replacing your doctor with someone willing to kill your grandmother.
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
Every government program I can think of that doesn't suck badly has two things in common: a limited amount of money changing hands, and a limited amout of power over peoples lives.
Or is run by a non-American government.
The only reason government-only health care might be a bad option in the US is because it would be the American government running it, and the American government is uniquely and completely dysfunctional when it comes to delivering effective domestic programmes.
Here in Canada we have government-only health care, for all practical purposes: the Canada Health Act makes it effectively impossible to deliver health care services outside of the government system, although we are starting to see more private-care options due to long waiting lists for some procedures in some parts of the country, and the government-run courts have ruled that "access to a waiting list is not access to care."
However, despite the undoubted issues with our system, we live longer than Americans and spend less money per capita on health care than the PUBLIC health care system in the US spends, much less the vastly inefficient and ineffective private system. And this despite being more ethnically diverse and having a much smaller, more thinly-spread population than in the US.
So it is clearly and simply false, a flat-out contradiction of fact, to say that public-only health care necessarily sucks. To believe that is exactly equivalent to the belief that the Sun moves around the Earth. The only way anyone could believe it is as an article of faith, side-stepping all the empirical evidence to the contrary.
I mention Canada's system here because it is the one I'm most familiar with, but their are plenty of European systems that are closer to the mixed public option system the US is talking about, and they all work at least as well as Canada's and some better. But in most cases the public aspect of the system does a good job of delivering basic care. The logically disabled will at this point for some reason always point to the few places with sucky public systems, as if "some public systems suck" in some way disproves the undoubted empirical fact that "many public systems do not suck."
There's very little point in arguing with people blinded by faith, so I doubt merely pointing out raw empirical facts will convince you of anything. But hopefully other people reading will discount your delusional--but mysteriously common--view a little bit more.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
But why are many of the people protesting against government run health insurance on Medicare, and express a high level of satisfaction with it? Same with Medicaid. Same with the US Postal Service (Obama's ignorant quip not withstanding), which I've certainly found easier to deal with than Fedex? Not to even delve into how we (in general) trust the government for security, domestic and abroad, collecting taxes without paying the head of the IRS one out of every ~$700 tax dollars every year (actual number for the CEO of United health care of US health care expenditure)?
Off the top of my head, I can't think of a national situation where there's a private company providing a better service than a public equivalent (and this is ignoring the contract asymmetry where Enron is allowed to criminally game the market and the state can't abrogate the contracts, yet the private firm can just say "oops, but our owners have limited liability" and declare bankruptcy.. which abrogates their current contracts). I have a feeling this was different in the 70's and 80s, that government was really a lot less efficient than it is now, or else I doubt Reagan would have had such pull. But I was born just around when Reagen was first elected, and in my adult life the vast majority of the arbitrary, caustic and inefficient bureaucracy that I've encountered has been in the private sector.
While the surest means of preventing excess is a lot of people paying attention to politics, and being vocal... the idea that the current proposals are generating so much vitriol while Bush's Medicare 'reform' that prohibits negotiating drug prices with pharmaceutical companies sure has the appearance of an irrational double standard.