Wednesday, December 03, 2008

School Board Shenanigans?

this isn't about sports, but it's what has been occupying my time and energy recently

let's pretend that there was a school district somewhere that was thinking about taking all of the children who live within a one-mile radius around a school and bussing those children to another school several miles away so that other children could be bussed in to attend in their place. can anyone envision a scenario where this makes logical sense (unless you're one of those people working to displace)? i sure can't.

yet that is exactly what is happening in Lower Merion, where the school board is not only thinking about doing this, they actually proposed a redistricting plan that would essentially take a community of walkers and turn them into bus riders.

“Why would they do this?” you might ask. “What’s the logic behind a move like that?”

“Is it for fairness?” – not really the children involved already face the longest commute times for both elementary and middle school to schools other than the ones to which they are closest

“Is it for environmental reasons?” – i’m not sure, but i suspect converting 200 walkers into bus riders isn’t exactly what I’d call “green”

“Is there a cost savings?” – doubtful as the district will now have to add bus capacity to service those 200 additional riders

“Why would they do it then?”

there are a number of factors involved (political, demographic, wealth), but unfortunately logic and fairness seem to be lacking. the bottom line is that the district decided that adding 10 minutes to the commute of one community (the wealthier one where the children already walk to elementary school and attend their closest middle school) was more burdensome than turning over another community (the less well-to-do one that chooses and values its walking lifestyle and whose children already face the longest commutes for both elementary and middle schools) and forcing them onto a bus.

shame on you, Lower Merion school board. shame on you.

Labels:

12 Comments:

Anonymous Phil said...

That sucks.

Knowing nothing about the situation, I'd bet it's about money one way or another. Either real estate taxes, school lunches, or swindling more $$$ out of the feds.

3:56 PM EST  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the bottom line is that the district decided that adding 10 minutes to the commute of one community (the wealthier one where the children already walk to elementary school and attend their closest middle school) was more burdensome than turning over another community (the less well-to-do one that chooses and values its walking lifestyle and whose children already face the longest commutes for both elementary and middle schools) and forcing them onto a bus."

Either that or this is part of a grand scheme hatched by Liberal thinkers that involves "affinity groups" or some other made-up nonsense.

How many "baseball fans" will attend each school? Or did the school board pick some other means of dividing and classifying the students?

I'm sure the intentions were quite good.

1:14 PM EST  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bullshit. Sounds like some self-important piece of shit assholes doing something stupid and complicated to justify their existence. No doubt they have some politically correct line of bullshit to back up what they're trying to do, but that's all it is. Bullshit.
Fuck those motherfuckers !!!!

Captain

7:50 PM EST  
Blogger Simon said...

How does this team have 5 losses and a tie with the Bungals?

8:45 AM EST  
Anonymous Phil said...

Well, 4 of their 5 losses have been by 6 points or fewer. Not like they've been getting blown out. You can woulda/shoulda all day long, but in the end they've got a good team. Fun to watch when they can put it together.

Also shows that this team has always been more about a healthy 36 rather than a healthy 5. They've still got an outside shot at making the playoffs. Good enough for me.

5:32 PM EST  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't see this as an either/or with 5 and 36, Phil. I think they're both fine players and the Eagles need them both.

What I've learned from watching this edition is that the talent is better than most people think and the play calling has been even worse. If Andy could convinve himself that a balanced attack is a good thing, and that running the ball actually opens up the passing game, I think we could be in business.

Hate to carp after a dominating win against a legitimate, championship-level team, but did anyone else cringe whenever LJ (finally) caught some passes and elected to tote the rock like a loaf of bread? I was SHOCKED he didn't fumble the ball on two different plays. Dude actually popped off after the game, implying that 6 catches for less than 50 yards somehow vindicated his status as a professional TE.

Nice to see Donovan acting a little gay again when he waved to the crowd following a decent scramble. Nice to see him having a little fun. Why wouldn't the Eagles bring this guy back? No way Kolb will be as good, right?

Ed

7:44 PM EST  
Blogger Simon said...

Agreed...McNabb is very good, Kolb...who knows.

3:05 AM EST  
Anonymous Phil said...

Ed, what I meant was that they had no rushing attack when 36 was really hurt. So 5 alone (or 5 + 25% of 36) couldn't win games. Compare this to when 5 goes out with a healthy 36 (Garcia) and the team seems to do much better. And . . .

But the bigger issue is our D finally showing up to play. We keep getting caught up in the Offensive side of the ball when the big difference from a month ago was NY's inability to move the ball at all. Especially the run.

7:15 AM EST  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I still disagree on the D Phil, they've been there all year except that Skins and first Giants game. Problem is, when your offense is woeful and keeps going 3 and out buring 1 minute of clock and you're on the field for 40 minutes or more against professionals, you get tired and you give up points. This starts and ends with Andy's play calling. If they run, they win. If he goes 70% pass, they're cooked. Watching them beat the Giants further pissed me off and convinced me Reid must go. Unless he walks into Lurie's office and commits to playing professional NFL football (read establishing the run by pounding the rock week in and week out), then he must go because that gimmicky pass first offense is dead. Passing teams never win. Old man winter creeps in and winds swirl and fingers get cold and balls get dropped. Change with the game, run the damned ball every week (trust me, it'll work eventually. Even a sound D like New York gets tired when the biggest O line in the league pounds them for 10 series). If he refuses to upgrade at RB (i.e. get some healthy depth) and alter his offense to at worst go 50% run/50% pass, he has to go! These last two games have to convine Lurie that the only way to consistently win in this league is to run the ball. Saves your defense, eats the clock, demoralizes your opponent. These last two wins have done nothing but piss me off and convince me that reid must be forced to change or be fired.

And how did this team tie Cincy? As bad as they have been at times, they win that and are 8-5 and in business down the stretch with even some wiggle room as the NFC South and North keeps bumping each other off. Instead they put all the pressure in the world on themselves because of that game when their game plan was to throw 70 times in gale force winds.

Bumble

1:14 PM EST  
Anonymous Phil said...

Bumble, FO's done a ton of work. Running more doesn't lead to winning. Winning leads to running more. And we've already shown before that the Eagles run as many plays as other teams. Game clock doesn't matter here. I agree they need better RB depth. Also, 36 probably only has another year ot 2 left in him.

I'm enjoying rooting for the underdog here. Go EAGLES! Nice game vs. CLE.

7:45 AM EST  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Running doesn't lead to winning more? That is sort of a vague statement in and of itself despite what random number crunching monkeys say. Committing to the run and doing it every week leads to wins. Randomly running plays that net you 1-3 yards don't win, but pounding the rock well with traps and counters and play action passes leads to wins.

Bumble

10:33 AM EST  
Blogger The Mean Guy said...

Running doesn't lead to winning more? That is sort of a vague statement in and of itself despite what random number crunching monkeys say. Committing to the run and doing it every week leads to wins. Randomly running plays that net you 1-3 yards don't win, but pounding the rock well with traps and counters and play action passes leads to wins.

i think you're arguing different points. phil's point is that the statistical research to this point indicates that there is a correlation between winning and running, but a causation link has not been established and is generally thought not to exist.

the reason is that winning teams tend to run a lot after they have a lead rather than run a lot to get the lead. (which is the basis of phil's point, phil, please correct me if i'm wrong).

committing to the run and doing it every week only leads to wins if you're successful at running. 36 carries for 72 yards won't often lead you to any wins. running successful plays lead you to wins.

my issue with the eagles running game is as much about the way the eagles choose to run -- gimmick plays, misdirection, delays -- as it is about the frequency with which they run.

the birds passed a lot more than they ran in the first half last night, yet i don't think anyone was complaining about play selection. why? because the birds were moving up and down the field at will.

11:21 AM EST  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home