Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I would not have selected him based on his failure to actually improve the schools to a level that would make Chicago schools competitive with other school systems. I know he took on a big job, my point is give him time to prove he can actually accomplish something of note. I say reward results.
|
What you seemed to be saying was that you wanted to hold results that didn't exist against him. If you were really concerned with rewarding results, you'd probably spend some time examining results instead of alluding to results that don't actually mean what you want them to mean.
Quote:
|
You don't accept my knowledge, experience or the information I provided. Do your own homework, if you conclude Chicago schools are good, so me how you came to that conclusion.
|
I don't accept the knowledge, experience or information you provided because it is irrelevant. You can't use a single point data to determine a trend-- this is elementary. I can't point to the state of Baghdad right now to decide whether things have improved there-- I need to compare the current state of Baghdad with some previous state of Baghdad. Even that two-point analysis would probably be too simplistic to render meaningful results.
Your argument that he failed to improve the schools because some of them are rated poorly now is empty. Your argument that he failed to improve schools because you know people who wouldn't send their kids to a Chicago public school is empty. The emptiness of these arguments doesn't depend on the validity of the knowledge, experience or information you provided, because information isn't what is problematic about them. What is problematic is that you think your data means something that it does not, that it can not.
This isn't that hard to understand, is it?