Slashdot Mirror


Stand and Deliver Teacher Jaime Escalante Dies

DesScorp writes "Jaime Escalante, the math teacher portrayed in the hit '80s movie Stand and Deliver, has died of cancer at age 79. Escalante is legendary for creating the advanced math 'pipeline' program at Garfield High in East Los Angeles in the '70s and '80s, an area populated mostly by poorer Hispanic families. Escalante's students eventually outpaced even richer schools in advanced placement tests for calculus. Escalante refused to accept excuses from his students or community about why they couldn't succeed, and demanded a standard of excellence from them, defying the notion that poor Hispanic kids just weren't capable of advanced work. While Escalante became a celebrity because of the hit movie about his efforts, jealousy from other teachers ... as well as red tape from teacher's unions and the public school bureaucracy, resulted in Escalante and his hand-picked teachers leaving Garfield. Since his departure, Garfield has never replicated Escalante's success with math students, and Reason Magazine reported on the shameful way in which others tore down what Escalante and his teachers worked so hard to build."

42 of 389 comments (clear)

  1. Rest in peace. by gambit3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm going to cry. Really.
    I had the blessing to meet Mr. Escalante just a few months ago, before he was diagnosed with cancer. What a wonderful, wonderful man.

    They should name schools after people like him.

    1. Re:Rest in peace. by Cytotoxic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      One would think so. But if you read the fine article from Reason magazine, you'll see why that will never happen - at least not the public schools. In fact, the school he transformed worked very hard to undo all of his good works. Quite successfully too. Apparently, all evidence of math and calculus prowess and teacher competence have been eradicated at Garfield since he was pushed out.

    2. Re:Rest in peace. by Moryath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They should name schools after people like him.

      Sure, whatever. Name whatever you want.

      What they REALLY should do is stop dumbing down the curriculum and "passing" ever-crappier performance, and follow the methods he used (no more excuses, no more "but it's hard why should I learn" bullcrap). Set the bar high and the kids will reach for it, set the bar low and kids will nap.

    3. Re:Rest in peace. by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 3, Informative

      So it'd be better if it came from a pseudo-communist Democratic shilling rags?

      Reason has been named one of the best english language magazines twice in the last 10 years.

      I work in K-12 education and have for the last 15 years, sorry to burst your bubble but it takes a moderate or right-wing news source to critically look at public education, the Unions and administration. Reason will look at it, so might the Atlantic but the New York Times sure isn't going to.

    4. Re:Rest in peace. by cduffy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I disagree with the slant of the article that this is a scandal. Have the Chicago Bulls been just as good without Jordan? Of course not. Special people are special. You are lucky when you get them, but most of the time you have to work around not having them.

      When you don't have those special people because they were driven out without good cause... then yes, it's scandal.

    5. Re:Rest in peace. by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I disagree with the slant of the article that this is a scandal. Have the Chicago Bulls been just as good without Jordan? Of course not. Special people are special. You are lucky when you get them, but most of the time you have to work around not having them.

      I think this gentleman and John Taylor Gatto have a lot in common. The "special" thing about Gatto is his ability to see a spade and call it a spade instead of getting lost in all of the justifications and excuses. This one-line summary in no way does justice to either of the above-linked works, but Gatto went to some of the poorest inner-city schools in some of the worst neighborhoods and found that the children there were eager and very able learners once you stopped treating them like idiots. You'd think the school systems would appreciate anyone who can demonstrate that, but they didn't.

      So I think your analogy to the Chicago Bulls doesn't really work. The Bulls experienced a particularly outstanding individual but presumably, all the other players would have wanted to attain that level of talent. The school systems are experiencing problems that are institutional and profoundly anti-educational. I don't believe the problem with schools is funding or ability. I think the problem is that they are not really interested in improving their methods or looking too closely at their results.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    6. Re:Rest in peace. by DrgnDancer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can't speak for the magazine in general, but this article seemed fairly balanced. It did leave some blame on the doorstep of the teacher's union, but pretty clearly laid the lion's share on the school's administration. It also (having been written in the beginning of the decade) expressed concern about the (then anticipated) No Child Left Behind act. That was a conservative darling at the time of the writing. Most of the facts are undeniable anyway. He build a huge and successful program, he was driven out by perceived lack of support from the administration and union, and the program fell apart after he left.

      As someone who generally supports both unions and government services, even I have to admit that neither encourage excellence. They are both very good things in many ways, and both serve useful functions in bringing the most good to the most people, but neither is designed to accommodate the exceptional well. Like so many things in our society, public schools and teacher's unions fall into the "terrible idea, but better than the alternative" category. This case simply demonstrates the lacks of both structures particularly well, because of the particularly exception nature of the people involved.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    7. Re:Rest in peace. by HeckRuler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, well professionalism is a little tough when you're dying of cancer and can't afford the treatment. The actors from the movie and his former students had to pool together to help him out.

      All the high and mighty ideals go out the window when push comes to shove and you're broke.

  2. Re:Truly by TrisexualPuppy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yes, my cousin Juana was one of his students, indirectly. She went on to major in math at Cal and ended up graduating magna cum laude. Whenever you ask her about her academic career, the first person she points to is Escalante.

  3. Re:Truly by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Juana tell us more about her and her experiences in Escalante's class?

  4. Public schools by megamerican · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's no wonder he got lots of resistance against his peers, administration and teachers union. Public schools are not about education, its about creating dumbed down automatons who are easily controlled.

    "I don't want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers." - John D. Rockefeller

    --
    If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
    1. Re:Public schools by spun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obviously, the answer to the problem of owning class people gaming the system in their favor is to do away with all government oversight of the owning class, and sell the government to them wholesale. Because, if we had an unregulated free market, all the little mom and pop operations would rise up against their corporate masters and we would immediately have a free and fair market in everything. Obviously, the government is not protecting the little guy from the owning class, they are keeping the little guy down for the owning class.

      But wait, if all that is true, why is it the owning class telling us this? Why are the rich leading the charge to get rid of government regulations? Are they trying to use reverse psychology on us or something?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:Public schools by edittard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I don't want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers." - John D. Rockefeller

      He's still calling the shots, is he? Plutocrats are bad enough, but zombie plutocrats is just going too far.

      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    3. Re:Public schools by ShakaUVM · · Score: 4, Informative

      >>Public schools are not about education, its about creating dumbed down automatons who are easily controlled.

      You know it's funny. I work teaching teachers technology, and I can't recall ever hearing a teacher say they really wished their kids would all be dumbed down automatons. Instead, you hear them all sharing positive stories about a kid that gets engaged with the subject matter and starts thinking on his own. Except for some really burned out teachers, this is pretty much universally true. They ALL want kids interested in a subject, capable of critical and independent thought, and being successful in life (ideally by going to college).

      Now - inter-teacher rivalries and jealousies? Sure, I'll believe in that explanation as to why they undid the program at Garfield. But losing your entire cadre of teachers trained in his method probably had more to do with it than anything.

      The only bit that I will agree with you in this regard is that schools tend to be very socially conservative institutions (by this I don't mean politically conservative, like Republicans, but rather resistant to change). AAA teachers tend to get kicked out of the system. I had Jan Gabay as my English teacher for the 9th and 12th grades - she was Teacher of the Year for the entire country in 1990-something, did a year traveling the country speaking on teaching, went back to Serra High for a couple years, and has since quit public schools to teach at the UC San Diego Charter School.

      I also had Rick Halsey (IIRC, grandson of Admiral Bull Halsey) as a bio an AP Bio teacher, was an amazing teacher who took us into the canyons near the school to study actual plants and animals in the chaparral ecosystem. Every year he took his students on a week-long trip during Spring Break to go kayaking down the Colorado River or hiking in Anza Borrego, etc. He quit because the school was worried he was exposing them to too much liability risk.

      Our system right now is rather dysfunctional. But teachers want kids to succeed - they don't want to produce dumb automatons. It's no longer the 1800s where we need to prep kids for work in the mills - "21st Century Skills" and all that is the current paradigm in education.

  5. Re:Yeah haters, this *is* News for Nerds by d1r3lnd · · Score: 5, Informative

    Also, some of you might have a passing interest in mathematics.

  6. Re:Truly by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Informative

    He was from Bolivia. Hispanic != Mexican.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  7. Re:To hell with those who won't better themselves. by CorporateSuit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    His case is an interesting one in the Nature vs. Nurture argument. He showed that, by nature, inner city hispanic kids were just as capable at advanced studies as anyone else -- it simply required a mixture of blasting the old nurture ("You'll never be good enough to be something like an engineer, so why don't you just open a restaurant, work construction, or run a shop?") with discipline, attention, expectation, and teaching.

    --
    I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
  8. Re:To hell with those who won't better themselves. by TheLink · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Escalante's example is nearly opposite of what you're proposing. It's about someone caring enough about OTHERs and improving their situation dramatically.

    You on the other hand are barking up the "people should just help themselves" tree.

    --
  9. Re:To hell with those who won't better themselves. by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People tend to live up to other people's expectations. Teachers don't expect Black and Hispanic students to do well. Yes, ultimately people are responsible for their own success or failure, but it doesn't help when you've got teachers telling young kids "It doesn't matter if you do your homework or not -- we'll promote you anyway" (and yes, my ethnic daughter was actually told this by her teacher -- the same teacher that threatened to sue me for complaining she wasn't doing her job.)

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  10. Re:Truly by bunratty · · Score: 3, Funny

    What I want to know is if she is merry!

    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  11. Why I still think we need vouchers by 5pp000 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    From TFA:

    Gradillas has an explanation for the decline of A.P. calculus at Garfield: Escalante and Villavicencio were not allowed to run the program they had created on their own terms. In his phrase, the teachers no longer "owned" their program. He's speaking metaphorically, but there's something to be said for taking him literally.

    In the real world, those who provide a service can usually find a way to get it to those who want it, even if their current employer disapproves. If someone feels that he can build a better mousetrap than his employer wants to make, he can find a way to make it, market it, and perhaps put his former boss out of business. Public school teachers lack that option.

    There are very few ways to compete for education dollars without being part of the government school system. If that system is inflexible, sooner or later even excellent programs will run into obstacles.

    I've never understood why the left, which has supported the idea of a single-payer health care system, can't get its head around vouchers, which amount to a single-payer education system. No, a voucher system isn't perfect; yes, there will be abuses. But look at the ongoing train wreck of a system we have now!

    In a voucher system, Jaime Escalante would have been massively successful, probably at the top of an organization teaching thousands of students. So what if some fundamentalists use their vouchers to send their kids to religious schools? Vouchers would finally give us a way to end the culture of mediocrity that has such a death grip on our schools now.

    --
    Your god may be dead, but mine aren't!
    1. Re:Why I still think we need vouchers by nweaver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because vouchers in general are not about school choice, but a means of forcing taxpayers to pay for religious education: subsidizing those who already send their children to parochial schools. If voucher programs exclude religious schools, there would be no schools to send the children to.

      Also, vouchers don't cover the whole cost: Mr Escalante couldn't do what he did in a private school as, even with vouchers, the students couldn't afford to attend.

      --
      Test your net with Netalyzr
    2. Re:Why I still think we need vouchers by pluther · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As a leftist extremist, I've never been able to understand it either.

      When I was volunteering at the Obama campaign office, this was probably my second biggest argument with most of my fellow workers, after nuclear power.

      There have been some very bad voucher schemes proposed, which amount to nothing more than yet another tax break for wealthy people while shifting the burden to the poor.

      But there have also been some good voucher schemes proposed. Something that would let parents send their children to any school, public or private, that they wanted, would be awesome. Something that would actually reduce the cost of expensive private schools for those who can't afford it would be great.

      Getting the fundamentalist nutjobs out of the public schools and into their own little inbred communities where they can't do any harm to the rest of society would just be a bonus, as far as I'm concerned.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    3. Re:Why I still think we need vouchers by sean_nestor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've never understood why the left, which has supported the idea of a single-payer health care system, can't get its head around vouchers, which amount to a single-payer education system. No, a voucher system isn't perfect; yes, there will be abuses. But look at the ongoing train wreck of a system we have now!

      In a voucher system, Jaime Escalante would have been massively successful, probably at the top of an organization teaching thousands of students. So what if some fundamentalists use their vouchers to send their kids to religious schools? Vouchers would finally give us a way to end the culture of mediocrity that has such a death grip on our schools now.

      Chiefly because exposing school systems to a competitive market implicitly accepts that some schools will fall into even worse decay that they currently are. Poor schools become poorer, with little funding to hire better teachers or acquire better books.

      As schools are not objects which can house an infinite number of students, some students will be forced to attend those schools caught in that downward spiral - schools that are not only sub-par, but lacking funding and interaction with a diverse body of students, since all the brightest have made it into the "nice" schools.

      When you consider that some students are going to be shafted big time by this arrangement, you may see why some (not just on the left) don't like the voucher system. Education after 18 is no longer compulsory, so good luck compensating for those all-important developmental years of education.

    4. Re:Why I still think we need vouchers by sean_nestor · · Score: 5, Informative

      This doesn't make any sense. There's no limit on the number of schools that can be created. Vouchers make it easier for parents to remove their children from failing schools and put them in better ones. Poorly run schools will quickly lose all their students and shut down. It's the current system that keeps failing schools in operation, not a voucher system!

      Schools do not just appear. They take a great deal of financing and legal paperwork. Your dream of grassroots school systems sprouting up is fantastically misguided.

      Yes, vouchers help some parents place their students into better schools. Undoubtedly. But what you are breezing over is the effect this has on the other students who aren't quite so lucky. When considering educational models, you need to give attention to all students - not just the bright ones. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and all that. That is where vouchers fail.

    5. Re:Why I still think we need vouchers by 5pp000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Schools do not just appear. They take a great deal of financing and legal paperwork. Your dream of grassroots school systems sprouting up is fantastically misguided.

      The existence and history of the homeschooling movement indicates very much to the contrary. What is a homeschooling household, but a grassroots school sprouted up around a single family? A properly designed voucher system would encourage groups of parents, when they feel they have no better alternative, to homeschool their kids together. That's a school! The vouchers would help with the cost of educational materials, and what more is needed?

      You seem to have absorbed the idea that education is something that comes only from large institutions. The truth is, education is a thoroughly individual activity that requires nothing but access to information and to people who already understand that information. In this Internet age, those things are more readily available than ever.

      --
      Your god may be dead, but mine aren't!
    6. Re:Why I still think we need vouchers by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You assume mobility. Only if those that take vouchers are required to take all applicants will that work, and only then if busing is free (and vouchers are accepted as payment in full).

      All the vouchers I've seen proposed so far do not cover the whole cost of private school, and as such, would make the schools inaccessible to the poor. They will be stuck in their failed school, while those with the means to leave will.

    7. Re:Why I still think we need vouchers by sean_nestor · · Score: 3, Informative

      The existence and history of the homeschooling movement indicates very much to the contrary. What is a homeschooling household, but a grassroots school sprouted up around a single family? A properly designed voucher system would encourage groups of parents, when they feel they have no better alternative, to homeschool their kids together. That's a school! The vouchers would help with the cost of educational materials, and what more is needed?

      I would not trust such a system like homeschooling to objectively and effectively educate most children. Relying on parents is an invitation for indoctrination and intellectual inbreeding. Forget teaching kids about skills that aren't already developed in adults, much less the ability to cope with different environments and alternative viewpoints.

      You seem to have absorbed the idea that education is something that comes only from large institutions. The truth is, education is a thoroughly individual activity that requires nothing but access to information and to people who already understand that information. In this Internet age, those things are more readily available than ever.

      No, I've absorbed the idea that people who have achieved a modicum of qualification are better suited to instruct our youth than parents who have a vested interest in protecting children from the scary world outside their home.

    8. Re:Why I still think we need vouchers by sean_nestor · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because public schools aren't an invitation for indoctrination? What you're saying is, you don't want them being indoctrinated with things you don't like. In other words, you're just another control freak.

      Hardly.

      The difference between public schools and home schooling in this case is that there is much more scrutiny in a public school. Though indoctrination most certainly happens in schools, it can at least be identified and handled, either through the media or in the courts - often both.

      If you can identify a mechanism in homeschooling which prevents Mr. Smith from telling his child that evolution is a lie from the devil and that the world is 6000 years old, I'd be glad to entertain the idea in a more serious light. But until then, public school is the lesser of two evils.

  12. Re:Truly by HungryHobo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    one thing that caught by eye:

    Open Enrollment. Escalante did not approve of programs for the gifted, academic tracking, or even qualifying examinations. If students wanted to take his classes, he let them.

    His open-door policy bore fruit. Students who would never have been selected for honors classes or programs for the gifted chose to enroll in Escalante's math enrichment classes and succeeded there.

    it hints perhaps that the drive to try is far more important than natural ability.

  13. Some of his achievements by Subm · · Score: 4, Informative

    It would be hard to overstate the impact Escalante has made on the education reform movement in the U.S. He and Rafe Esquith were the first to prove very publicly and definitively that demography is not destiny and that inner-city kids, with great teaching and high expectations, could achieve at high levels.

    At his peak, Escalante had 187 students at one time sitting for the Calculus AP exam — and his students accounted for ONE-THIRD of all Mexican-Americans passing the exam in the country.

  14. Wait... What?! by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 3, Insightful

    subsidizing those who already send their children to parochial schools.

    The parents of the kids in parochial school pay twice: once for their own kids' tuition, once again for their neighbors' kids via the school and property taxes. The typical voucher plan doesn't "force a taxpayer to pay for religious education," it allows a taxpayer to pay for what he actually uses.

    Meanwhile, if all the kids who were in parochial school were to leave parochial school and enter the public system (into which their parents had already paid their share) that public system would collapse. Even with the "extra money" coming in from the parents of the kids who are not educated publicly, the public system is on the verge of financial, educational, and architectural collapse. You should thank God (erm, sorry) every day that the "religious kids" are not in the public system; the public system couldn't handle it.

    1. Re:Wait... What?! by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The parents of the kids in parochial school pay twice: once for their own kids' tuition, once again for their neighbors' kids via the school and property taxes. The typical voucher plan doesn't "force a taxpayer to pay for religious education," it allows a taxpayer to pay for what he actually uses.

      If you thought that, then you'd be petitioning for childless people to be exempt from property tax. Public schools spread the burden across all. Their status as a parent or not is irrelevant, so they don't "pay twice" for the same thing. They pay once for educating everyone, before and after they have children, and the point is that an educated populous is productive. Regardless of whether they have kids, that's the goal of that. Second, once they do have kids, they have the choice of enrolling them for free into the institutions set up that they vote on. If they are so bad, why aren't they voting in better people? Why aren't they involved in the decision process? Instead, they want to take their ball and go home.

      But the problem is that the voucher systems I've seen are all designed not to help children, but to provide tax cuts for the rich and harm anyone in public schools (while not improving private schools at all). If you've seen one that doesn't do this, please enlighten me.

      Vouchers should be made available. And any school that takes a voucher should be required to take vouchers for payment-in-full and be required to take all applicants. But that'll never happen because the people against vouchers won't see what good they can do when done right (because they can do lots of harm when done wrong) and those that want them don't want to help the kids, but they want a tax break and to harm the public schools.

    2. Re:Wait... What?! by c_jonescc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you thought that, then you'd be petitioning for childless people to be exempt from property tax. Public schools spread the burden across all. Their status as a parent or not is irrelevant, so they don't "pay twice" for the same thing. They pay once for educating everyone, before and after they have children, and the point is that an educated populous is productive.

      Exactly. I find it far more rational to stop thinking about "my" taxes. I'm not purchasing individual goods with taxes. Whether I drive a car or not has little impact on the need for roads, as an example. There are certain needs we have as a society (I would include public education in that), and that is what "our" taxes are for. It stops being "your" money when you make your contribution to those social necessities via taxation.

      You're free to argue that there is waste in our system, or that tax money goes to things that are not contributive to societal living, or that the tax law is imbalanced in some way, but none of that changes the fact that the tax money is not yours to be used solely on the parts of group living that you feel you take advantage of.

      --
      Getting diabetes AND salmonella would be a bad weekend.
    3. Re:Wait... What?! by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now, onto your false assertions. The widespread belief that schools are paid for via property tax is false not only in my state but in many. Income and sales taxes account for the majority of funding for schools, and a majority portion of the remainder is from the federal government - which is not collecting property tax (yet). Funding from property tax is a small portion of school system funding. Thus, your assertion that it is "shared equally" is false on the face. Thus, it really is the "rich" paying for it.

      Non sequitur. I never claimed that they were distributed equally. In fact, even if just property tax, it would be progressive because rich use more land than the poor. So "equally" was stated by no one, and if I did use such wording it was to indicate that the burden was shared by all, not held to the same dollar amount.

      The manner in which the funding is obtained is also irrelevant. The majority of property tax in some places goes to schools, and Texas claims that half of all school funding is "local" but I don't know if that would include federal grants given directly to local schools.

      But none of that contradicts what I said. Please quote my assertion that's false which you addressed.

      We don't want to harm the public schools, and they don't need any help in that department anyway. It is hypocritical (and possibly mean-spirited) to say that those who want to pay for their kids' education are just trying to have more money but those who want their kids' education to paid for by other people are somehow virtuous.

      Again, a non sequitur. I explicitly stated that the act of "public education" is irrelevant to how a person educates their children or even whether they have any children at all. "Public education" is what you are being taxed for, not paying for the right to send your own children to public school.

      Your argument is like saying that welfare is broken because the only ones who can afford to pay in are the people who aren't using it. The act of paying in and the act of using the service are unrelated (well, not necessarily for unemployment and SS, but for most all other services it's true). How can I say this to say it so that you understand my point? It was declared that having an educated populous was important, and as such, education is provided for free. That's irrelevant to what you do with your own children. One is a public need and the other is a private need. You don't petition to get your police taxes refunded because you bought a gun for yourself, or try to get a refund on the fire department taxes because you didn't have a fire that year. It's simply not done as a "you pay this in taxes, you get this benefit directly back." Not for schools. Not for the police. Not for the fire department. Not for welfare.

      You've seen very few actual proposals on vouchers. I've never seen one that could be classified as a tax break for the rich. Why? All the proposals I've seen are a flat per-child amount, not tied to income at all.

      Right. And none of them covered the price of the public education, not to mention the much higher price of a private education. So someone who is offered a voucher would still have to come up with money. For the private school I attended, the proposed vouchers for Texas would have covered less than 25% of the cost. And the private schools would have had the same autonimy as before, so they would do as they have done, take who was already enrolled and only fill the small (about 5%) drop out rate (drop out of the school, like moving and such, not actual drop out as in never finishing). So the only people who'd be able to use them would be the people going there already, and they were overwhelmingly rich.

      It wasn't a "if you make more, you get more" scheme. But if you looked at who would actually be using the vouchers and the effect on their finances, it was a tax rebate for the rich.

      Thus, we would have a "regressive" tax cut in the sen

  15. Re:To hell with those who won't better themselves. by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can't force people to learn. Escalante's gift was his power to inspire others to improve their own education. He didn't do the work for them -- he just convinced them that he believed they could do it, and that it was worthwhile. Let's not kid ourselves; these kids worked their asses off to pass the Calculus AP exam. They couldn't have been so successful if it wasn't the most important thing in their lives at that time. The ability to make people believe in a better future through hard work -- that seems to be a element that is sadly lacking in the current Republican talking points.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  16. Re:Truly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Someone else probably said that first.

  17. One bizarre danger of vouchers by postermmxvicom · · Score: 3, Informative

    I personally know a man who has run a private school for 40+ years. Where he lives, there used to be a voucher program. Many private schools went through the hoops to restructure to qualify. In then end, the schools that accepted the vouchers had to close.

    Why? Well, eventually the voucher program was brought to court. The schools had grown dependent on the voucher program. The families had grown dependent. When the money was gone, they all had to shut down. Except for the schools which had avoided the voucher program.

    --
    One last thing: Sometimes I wonder; "Is that someone's signature? Or do they type that at the end of each post?"
  18. Re:Truly by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The flip side, is that the students that didn't want to be there, weren't. I remember many kids in High School that disrupted class because they didn't want to be there.

    --
    All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
  19. Re:Truly by mosb1000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Now, apparently, his techniques have been abandoned.

    Indeed, they were much too effective in facilitating actual learning to be useful in a modern teaching environment. The system works!

  20. Re:Truly by yurtinus · · Score: 3, Funny

    Seriously raises questions - this one time I wrote a loop and used i as the iterator. Later on I was working on a program from one of the other guys and found out that son of a bitch STOLE my code and used the SAME DAMN ITERATOR NAME.

    Bunch of savages.

    --
    +1 Disagree
  21. Re:Truly by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Funny

    it hints perhaps that the drive to try is far more important than natural ability.

    Disagree with you Yoda does.