Close But No Cigar
By Mitch Berg
In Sunday’s column, Lori Sturdevant recites about eight column inches of party line about former State Rep. and current Taxpayers’ League president Phil Krinkie (“ironically”, exactly the same line that certain other lefty pundits are spouting) – and, by way of noting that she and Krinkie are college classmates, notes that she actually troubled herself to talk with Krinkie about the spin.
And she says:
Notice how much more reasonable a zealot can sound when chatting with an old classmate than when performing on the stump?
No, Lori. We notice how much more reasonable a reasonable person like Phil Krinkie sounds when his words aren’t filtered through a zealot disguised as a “gatekeeper” like yourself.
Read it yourself. Make up your own mind.
That might make Lori Sturdevant cry, but life’ll kill ya, won’t it?
November 5th, 2007 at 9:09 am
[…] Mitch Berg noted the column as well, and said: No, Lori. We notice how much more reasonable a reasonable person like Phil Krinkie sounds when his words aren’t filtered through a zealot disguised as a “gatekeeper” like yourself. […]
November 5th, 2007 at 10:27 am
I may have to disagree with the reasonableness of this one..
“Stop spending millions and millions of dollars where there is no true possibility of academic improvement or academic success. There are hundreds, thousands of children in our public schools today that we are babysitting, we are warehousing them. When we pay a para to be in a classroom to take care of the child’s feeding tube, there is literally no way that individual is going to gain anything from being in that school building.”
November 5th, 2007 at 11:11 am
“Stop spending millions and millions of dollars where there is no true possibility of academic improvement or academic success.
My problems with the current model of education are a matter of record. There’s certainly a debate to be had, here.0
There are hundreds, thousands of children in our public schools today that we are babysitting, we are warehousing them.
This is demonstrably true.
When we pay a para to be in a classroom to take care of the child’s feeding tube, there is literally no way that individual is going to gain anything from being in that school building.”
This is an intensely emotional branch of the subject – but the time, money and effort we spend mainstreaming kids who, in practice, are not mainstream is certainly worth a debate.
Nothing unreasonable about it, unless your entire approach to the issue is emotional.
As, I admit, mine at least partly is.
November 5th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Missed part of the context for that quote…he is talking about special education students.
November 5th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
“” When we pay a para to be in a classroom to take care of the child’s feeding tube, there is literally no way that individual is going to gain anything from being in that school building.””
I got my start in the School District as a Data Base Administrator for the 3rd Party Billing Program. The question in his case, is who should pay. At what point is a Medical service deemed an academic one. Private insurances, as a rule, would refuse payments on our claims of medical services provided in school, ones that the insurance company has no problem paying during the Summer months when the same child is at home. Of Course, Medical Assistance would pay, but that is just shifting state dollars around.
So I ask, and this is a big issue with many financially cut to the bone districts, at what point are medical conditions the responsibility of the School district, or should those expenses be borne by the Health Insurance Provider. If the Insurance provider would take the appropriate responsibility on the claim, you would free up significant amounts of dollars to concentrate on true Academic improvement of all. Of course, this would effect the premium cost of the pool, but at least it would shift the cost to those receiving the medical service, and not necessarily those who think they are paying for academics, but instead are paying for medical services unknowingly.
Flash