Banned in NYC: References to computers in homes

[XJ-linux]

We are getting close to the end I fear. Words cannot express... never mind... I've lost faith in Western Civilization as it is coming to exist in America...

Does NYC really exist, or is it just a construct to showcase what folly can be achieved by large groups of people living in close proximity? No offense intended to New Yorkers. But, seriously?

War On Words: NYC Dept. Of Education Wants 50 'Forbidden' Words Banned From Standardized Tests « CBS New York

 

[MYmacROX]

Incredible. Instead of trying to teach students about other cultures and tolerance of our differences, they think they can shelter them from everything? How sensitive and stupid do they think these kids are? You can't mention a house with a swimming pool in a standardized test? O...M...G!!!

I throw my hands up.

 

[harryb2448]

Poor list. They left off study; responsibility; careful and ownership!

 

[zewazir]

How does sheltering children from basic concepts of reality in our society (ie: not everyone is rich - or poor, not everyone agrees with how the universe came to be, not everyone celebrates the same events or in the same manner, etc. etc. etc.) equate to EDUCATION? How can we observe and celebrate multiculturalism if it is, supposedly, "offensive" to even acknowledge that other ideas exist? The people that came up with this idea need to get out of education as their chosen field of employment. Let them hide in a hole somewhere denying reality while the rest of us, including the children in the NYC education system, get on with their real lives, living with others who are actually different in many ways, from skin color to religion to socio-economic status.

 

[Discerptor]

This is a result of the messed up politics surrounding the NYC Schools Chancellor position, not an indicator of anything to do with New York or its society as a whole. Dennis Walcott is the second chancellor in a row without the credentials legally required of any appointee to the position. And he's only there because the previous one, Cathie Black, who had literally no background in education at all, couldn't even stick it out for four months. Bear in mind Cathie Black's appointment was part of the ridiculous notion getting popular in this country that being a successful businessperson somehow qualifies you to be a good public servant. With her sudden absence, the deputy mayor was just shoved in since they needed to find someone on short notice and he had one relevant degree. Believe me: no one in the administration or faculty, let alone in NYC as a whole, actually respects this guy's ideas either.

 

[indychris]

This is a result of the messed up politics surrounding the NYC Schools Chancellor position, not an indicator of anything to do with New York or its society as a whole. Dennis Walcott is the second chancellor in a row without the credentials legally required of any appointee to the position. And he's only there because the previous one, Cathie Black, who had literally no background in education at all, couldn't even stick it out for four months. Bear in mind Cathie Black's appointment was part of the ridiculous notion getting popular in this country that being a successful businessperson somehow qualifies you to be a good public servant. With her sudden absence, the deputy mayor was just shoved in since they needed to find someone on short notice and he had one relevant degree. Believe me: no one in the administration or faculty, let alone in NYC as a whole, actually respects this guy's ideas either.

What about Walcott's credentials makes it illegal for him to hold that spot?

IMO, the primary problem here is one of a huge bureaucracy making decisions that have broad-sweeping ramifications for a population that they can't possibly fully understand, rather than allowing local educators to make sensible decisions based on their involvement IN their community. Walcott oversees 1700 schools and more than 1 MILLION students. There's no 'agency' that can truly make solid decisions that cater to the needs of local schools when we're talking that many lives. It's the problem with the NEA, overbearing state-level school administrations, and large metropolitan school corporations. It's too much power invested in too few people who make too many large decisions effective too much of the community.

In essence, this is simply another case where educational administrators think they know *BEST* because they have the degrees that say they do.

 

[Discerptor]

What about Walcott's credentials makes it illegal for him to hold that spot?

He lacks a superintendent's license, just as Cathie Black did. It's why both of them needed the state to issue a waiver for them to serve as chancellor. That license in turn requires that the person actually have some amount of experience as a school administrator, which Walcott does not. Walcott's appointment was rushed due to the somehow unexpectedly short duration of Black's time as Chancellor, and her appointment was the result of the ludicrous "Being a successful businessperson means you'll be a great public servant" mentality that the national political circus has fostered for the last few years with such phenomena as the Tea Party and Herman Cain.

 

[indychris]

He lacks a superintendent's license, just as Cathie Black did. It's why both of them needed the state to issue a waiver for them to serve as chancellor. That license in turn requires that the person actually have some amount of experience as a school administrator, which Walcott does not. Walcott's appointment was rushed due to the somehow unexpectedly short duration of Black's time as Chancellor, and her appointment was the result of the ludicrous "Being a successful businessperson means you'll be a great public servant" mentality that the national political circus has fostered for the last few years with such phenomena as the Tea Party and Herman Cain.

So if I'm interpreting you properly, Walcott does NOT hold the position illegally as a waiver was granted, thereby making the only credentials necessary the waiver that was issued on his behalf?

If I may inquire further, what is Walcott's relationship to Herman Cain and the Tea Party?

 

[Discerptor]

So if I'm interpreting you properly, Walcott does NOT hold the position illegally as a waiver was granted, thereby making the only credentials necessary the waiver that was issued on his behalf?

I said he didn't have the credentials legally required for an appointee, not that he currently holds the position illegally. The waiver is a method of getting around it in special circumstances.

If I may inquire further, what is Walcott's relationship to Herman Cain and the Tea Party?

As anyone that reads the post can see, I was relating the political climate that gave rise to those two things to the appointment of Cathie Black, and the only reason Walcott is Chancellor right now is that she was so grossly unfit for the job that she quit in less than four months and someone needed to be shoved into the position very quickly. I understand that you did read the post, did see this, and are just being intentionally obtuse, though.

 

[indychris]

I said he didn't have the credentials legally required for an appointee, not that he currently holds the position illegally. The waiver is a method of getting around it in special circumstances.


As anyone that reads the post can see, I was relating the political climate that gave rise to those two things to the appointment of Cathie Black, and the only reason Walcott is Chancellor right now is that she was so grossly unfit for the job that she quit in less than four months and someone needed to be shoved into the position very quickly. I understand that you did read the post, did see this, and are just being intentionally obtuse, though.

Actually, I read the post, did see that, and realize that, IMO, you are somehow attempting to obfuscate the issue and demean Walcott (honestly, his policy should handle that quite amply) by bringing the Tea Party/Cain into a discussion that really has no relevance.

It actually leaves me chuckling quite readily to see NYC politics and the Tea Party/Cain even mentioned together. ;D

Other than trying to redeem himself politically with some TP lipservice, recall that is was a very liberal Bloomberg who initially suggested to Katie Curic that the Times Square attempted bomber was likely someone upset about Obamacare, suggesting that it was a disgruntled Tea Partier or the like.

You appear to me to be attempting to create an association that simply doesn't exist in order to propagate your apparent view that lifelong education bureaucrats can naturally do a better job at dictating an educational political agenda than can people coming out of the private sector (oooohhhh, that evil private sector!!).

I simply don't buy the premise or the connection.