Should Schools Be Graded?

The DOE Superintendent and HSTA have complained about the Honolulu Magazine’s annual grading of public schools. Is their request reasonable? I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I think there is a legitimate need to assess schools, and I also the demand for this information is legitimate, especially for policymakers, taxpayers, and parents. On the other hand, I’m have serious doubts creating a fair and accurate evaluation of schools. How do you define what makes a successful school? How do you evaluate or measure this? These two questions are challenging by themselves, but even if one could answer them, one would have to be able to separate various factors that would go into school success–especially the students and their families and the quality of the school staff. Schools with many ambitious students, with little physical, cognitive, social, or emotional problems, will have a greater chance of succeeding, then a school with large group of students who are unmotivated and have a host of problems. In my view, a fair and accurate assessment would have to separate these factors, and, again, I have serious doubts this can be done well.

Idea for News TV Show: The Accountability Board

General idea:

The show will feature a panel of journalists and pundits that represent at least the left and right. Panelists, lead by a moderator, will discuss issues, giving everything from general remarks, analysis, predictions, etc. Some of these remarks will be summarized and put on a large board–picture a table with the top row featuring the names and pictures of each pundit, one per column. In the rows below, there will be a list of questions or issues. In the pundits column we will see some of their comments and/or a summary of their comments.

One of the main effects of the show I’d like to see is the reputations of pundits becoming linked to the degree to which their analysis and comments are reasonable, logical, and fair. Ultimately, the rewards should come in the form of improved reputation and status, while punishments should have the opposite effect–e.g., the reputations of those who make outrageous comments, lie, etc. will take a big hit.

One format I’d like to use on the show is to present at least two types of narratives or theories about an individual or situation. For example, with Trump, the great dealmaker who Washington hates because he’s crude outsider that has made them look foolish, might be one theory. The other theory is that Trump is a conman, who only cares about enriching himself. Pundits will all stake their reputations on their positions of each theory. As new information comes in, the pundits can adjust their position. In these reviews, the moderator can bring up previous comments made by the pundits–both positive and negative. One variation is the entire panel can also vote on whether an individual pundit is being reasonable, operating in good faith, etc. And these comments can also be put on the accountability board as well. Basically, the idea is to hold a pundit accountable for their public statements.

Describing Football Styles That Excel In The Playoffs Versus Those That Do Not

In another thread, I asked you guys to help me define and describe NFL pro style offense. In this thread, I’m seeking your guys help again on a somewhat similar topic. I’ve been having football discussions about the styles of play that do well in playoffs versus those that do not. Normally, I would describe the former as teams that have an identity based on really good, physical defenses and run game, while I’d describe the latter by saying they are characterized by high-scoring, aggressive pass-centric offenses. (In the rest of the discussion, I’m going to use “D/R” to indicate the teams based on strong defense and run games and “P” for aggressive pass-centric offensive teams.) To make this more clear, I give specific examples. D/R teams would be 2013 Seahawks, 2015 Broncos, and almost all the Super Bowl winners in the 80s and 90s. The P teams would be 2007 Patriots, Greatest Show on Turf Rams, Run-and-shoot Oilers, Air Coryell Chargers, Marino’s Dolphins. I would also include Colts with Manning, Saints with Brees, Rodgers with Green Bay, and Roethlisberger in the last few years with the Steelers. Continue reading “Describing Football Styles That Excel In The Playoffs Versus Those That Do Not”

2018-2019 NBA

Thread for general discussion about the 2018-2019 NBA season. I want to start things off Nikola Jokic. Did either of you tell me to watch this guy? I feel like maybe Don recommend that I watch him. Anyway, I saw some highlights of his passing. Some of these passes are approaching, if not equivalent to Magic and Bird, which is really exciting for me. The guy seems to have some other skills, too. He’s making me more interested in watching the NBA, or at least watching him. Here’s some highlights:

More

I’m becoming a fan.

For comparison:

All-Time Greatest NBA Players

Dan Patrick presents Charles Barkley with several basketball players and asks him if he’s better than them. Here are some of the players; LeBron, Bird, Magic, Isiah, Duncan, Karl Malone (I think that’s it). Who do you think he said was better than him?

He says Magic, Duncan, and LeBron are better, but hesitates on Bird. That’s some disrespect right there. I can’t help but feel like he’s not remembering how good Bird was. He says that he’s probably a better rebounder than Bird. That’s reasonable, although I think Bird is a terrific rebounder, and if focused on that, his stats could be way better. He says he’s probably a better defender. Maybe. He says Bird is obviously a better shooter. Too bad, he didn’t move on to passing. I think Barkley is a really good passer, but he’s not better than Bird. I’m a little puzzled as to why someone would definitely choose Magic over Bird. I think they’re both pretty close, but I think you can make a better case for Bird over Magic.