Clevelander17

Like I said, I can see both sides of the discussion, but I'm not sure the "chase 'em down and engage 'em in a shootout method" is always automatically the clear way of dealing with a situation.

I can see both sides here. These police chases pose a danger to everyone and it may be instructive to take a step back and ask ourselves: What crimes did these people commit and might there have been a better way to apprehend them? When you have dozens of cars flying through neighborhoods at high speeds and the cops unloading 137 rounds, it damn well better be worth it, because that's a huge risk to the public at-large. I realize that the criminals are to blame here, but perhaps it would have been better to let them run to wherever it is they were going to run to and then apprehend them there. I also understand that such a thing may be easier said than done, but it's something to consider. Some other localities have indeed stopped engaging in police chases based on weighing the costs versus the benefits.

Apparently when investigators searched the vehicle, they found no gun and no bullet casings. I'll be curious to see where this story goes...

Sketchers? I guess I didn't even realize that they had standalone stores. Either way, this isn't the type of Severance rumor that makes me any more optimistic about the shopping center's future.

Not at all surprised to see UD high on that list. I am curious, though, where is Miami University? I think they also get a large portion of their students from Illinois, so much so that I recall when I visited Miami as a prospective student they told us that they sold the Chicago Tribune on campus because so many of their students were from that area.

Very ugly game. I was just waiting for OSU to pull away and it never happened. Basil had a huge game for a guy that had four field goals made TOTAL in the 11 games prior to today.

Crap, well that stinks. I don't know how the NHL can possibly make this up to Columbus. How far in advance are these games scheduled? Probably at least half a decade before the league can promise another All-Star Game to the Jackets.

Let them vote on it...and I'm only half-kidding when I say that. I think that people should be able to associate and be governed by whom they want to be governed. If Toledo wants to be part of Michigan, then let them leave. Likewise, if Texas/Louisiana/Alabama/Mississippi really want to secede, why not have a conversation about it? In many ways, the country they leave behind may end up being better off. Heck look at Europe, where nations such as Scotland, Catalonia, and Flanders may be making serious moves towards independence in the coming few years. I understand why it's nice to have stability, but I also don't know that these lines on the map, which are often based on arbitrary decisions made many centuries ago, need to be set in stone and beyond even a discussion.

"Largely the same" does not equal "the same." I haven't studied the voucher data as much as the charter school data, but in both cases we're not talking about the same type of student when you're comparing those coming from families that are actively seeking to improve their education to those that are not. I do know that the results of studies for both programs are mixed and of course there is a lot of politics involved. Playing "musical schools" may result in some gains (often marginal, at best) for some individual students, but again we're not talking about something that is repeatable system-wide because the students from which you want to isolate the motivated students still have to educated and accounted for in some system. Whether they're on the rolls of the public school system or a charter or parochial school (if you can convince either to accept them), they're still going to cost a ton of money to educate and still generally do poorly on standardized tests. My "dangerous" comment has more to do with all of these unproven, for-profit charter management companies that have come on the scene as of late. Many policy-makers seem convinced that charters are a panacea and as a result the vetting process has become far too lackadaisical because of it. For some (not all, but enough that it's worth mentioning), the privatization of education is a money-grab and not about improving outcomes. I realize I probably sound like a broken record here, but I really do think it's important to ask ourselves why some schools appear to be "successful" and some do "not." More than just a discussion about the effects of inputs (which clearly cannot be downplayed), is there anything of substance happening in a school like Solon that is not happening in a school like Collinwood? If we can, we should get the "struggling" public schools to more closely emulate the "successful" public schools. And if the major differences lie somewhere else, then perhaps we should address those differences instead of putting our eggs in the basket of these educational changes that gives us at best marginal (and often debatable) improvements.

I don't know if this has been discussed, but I like the idea of putting Waiters on the bench to provide a scoring punch for the second team.

Well, there is a little something on the line because they have a shot at slamming the door on Michigan's slim chance of getting to the Big Ten title game. That alone is good enough for me. Although in all likelihood Nebraska will probably crush Iowa at home to clinch the Legends Division championship, I wouldn't mind seeing the Buckeyes make it a moot point. I don't think you went to Ohio State. NOTHING in the OSU football season matters more than a win over Michigan. NOTHING! OSU could lose every game in the season, but if they beat Michigan it's a successful season! I didn't go to Ohio State, but I am a huge fan. I was not at all downplaying the game or the rivalry, my comment was just kind of building on what was said in the post before mine.

Well, there is a little something on the line because they have a shot at slamming the door on Michigan's slim chance of getting to the Big Ten title game. That alone is good enough for me. Although in all likelihood Nebraska will probably crush Iowa at home to clinch the Legends Division championship, I wouldn't mind seeing the Buckeyes make it a moot point.

The analogy isn't perfect, but I do think it cuts to the core of the debate here. Due to their nature (and usually by design), most private/charter/magnet schools are not dealing with anywhere near the same student demographic as their local public school "competition." Therefore I'm not at all shocked that with different inputs, their outputs also tend to be vastly different. Many people who favor charters or vouchers approach this discussion with the idea that these innovations will solve all of the system's problems and that with implementation of choice and competition, every child (or a significantly greater proportion than we have now) will become proficient (or whatever the day's catchphrase for educational adequacy may be). I think that that type of thinking is very mistaken and even dangerous in some ways. The point of view you seem to have is one that I don't hear often (but is more realistic) in that you apparently just want to create more options for those that want to take advantage of them, conceding that some families and students may choose not to do so.

Therein lies the rub and I believe this kind of goes along with a discussion being held on another thread regarding the schools in Cleveland. Similarly, the CHUH schools have, as a far as I can tell, a less-than-stellar reputation within the region. Many young folks either buy in this area and move when they have kids or simply avoid the city altogether because the local schools are not an option for them. I think the district has an opportunity to fix that a bit if they were to consider some outside-the-box ideas for their upcoming reconfiguration plan (which itself will provide fodder for years to come for this thread), but I doubt they shake things up too much, which means that is one part of the CH experience I don't see improving any time soon.

Your idea doesn't sound terrible, but I do see some potential issues. First off, it costs significantly more to educate special needs students than regular students, so I'm curious as to where they fit into the equation? Second, I wonder if parents will either have enough knowledge--or the will--to make the type of decision that you would like (or assume) they would make. What I mean (and you rightly acknowledge) is that parents will often choose schools that are close to their residence, or are perceived to be safer, or have a certain philosophy, even if those schools are failures. So undoubtedly quite a few "failing" schools will be propped up by choice and vouchers because parents don't know or don't care to look for options where the test-based measurement indicates "excellence" (which is unfortunately all anyone seems to care about these days). Beyond the non-profit question that another poster raised, I'm just not sure "competition" works as well as you're implying in education. A lot of what constitutes an urban school's grade or ranking is based upon things that are well beyond its control. There aren't many, if any, best practices occurring in Solon that will magically turn Collinwood into a stellar high school. I just don't know what competitive practices a school like that can implement that will make any kind of a difference. It's similar to someone wondering what the Akron Aeros can do to "compete" with the San Francisco Giants. You can bring in Joe Torre and his staff and they can bring along their system, but short of turning over the entire roster (from AA quality to high caliber MLB talent), not much will change. And considering this from the urbanist angle, what I think it really comes down to is giving these people and other middle class families options that allow them to isolate their kids from the kids whose parents are either too busy or don't care enough to ensure that their child's education is a priority. To many of these middle class families, I don't think it matters what the option is, as long as there is access to a segregated (not necessarily racially segregated) educational option. I think that that is something that CMSD needs to accept, even if they did not have the stomach for it previously.

I have a hard time being convinced that a tax abatement for this development was necessary or fair. However I do think that news out of C-L has been very positive lately , and this project will only add to that. A lot can be argued about the direction the city as a whole is headed (I'm not as pessimistic as I was a year or two back), but the city's three gem retail districts all seem to be getting better (assuming something or things can come in a quickly replace Myxx in C-F).

I wish these same people were as "suspicious of big intrusive government" when using taxpayer dollars to build freeways and new interchanges for tiny fractions of the population.

They need to keep throwing this thing on the ballot until it passes. I have zero confidence in either party, but particular the Republicans because they stand to lose so much, to get it right. On another note, I am a bit concerned about the implications of the Voter Rights' Act. It's my vague understanding that the Act actually drives some of this gerrymandering because the VRA requires a certain number of a minority-majority House districts in states with large percentages of minorities...or something along those lines.

The issue takes care of itself? Huh? Creating an expansion of vouchers that willfully allows schools to leave kids behind, now THAT defeats the purpose. Right now urban districts like CMSD get raked over the coals because so many kids within its schools have learning disabilities or behavior problems and the districts struggle in educating these kids. If private schools are going to get public money, then they need to join in and have a stake in improving overall educational outcomes. That means being willing to take on a fair percentage of the most troubled students and working their "magic" on drastically improving their educational outcomes. If we just want to give hard-working and bright kids a chance to go to school in a more positive environment, and we're okay with many kids being left behind, then public support for vouchers and charter schools are unnecessary. A more widespread set of magnet school options within the public school system will more than do the trick, and do it without compromising the public aspect of public education.

Yeah, but I noticed instantly when watching last night that they implied Ohio was in the central time zone.

I think it's crazy to believe that Kasich is going to roll to re-election in 2014. He's going to be pummeled over SB5 no matter who he faces, whether it's Strickland or a dark-horse such as FitzGerald. Either way, it's not going to be a cakewalk. As for Mandel, I think this was his chance. Unless the GOP Ohio bench consists of guys like Shelley Duncan, Aaron Cunningham, and Ezekiel Carrera, there has to be somebody better out there who will knock him off in any statewide primary. He can't be well-liked enough by Republicans to get several chances at the big-time.

First off, if you push more money into the parochial school system, you don't think that this will raise tuition faster than might be expected? Isn't the conservative argument with college costs essentially that the government's involvement has been a big reason why tuition has gone through the roof in the past few decades? (I actually tend to agree with this theory and I also believe the same would happen at parochial schools--the big losers being the middle class families not receiving the vouchers.) Second, I don't know if the evidence points to "competition" being a legitimate solution to the problems in public education. I know that the studies done on Milwaukee's voucher system have been inconclusive in regards to improving student outcomes and in motivating public schools to "compete." Also putting forth the very idea that competition is needed seems to indicate a belief that the vast majority of public schools aren't doing the best they can with the students they're given and that if only they'd work harder their students would magically start learning more. It's nonsensical and that goes for merit pay and competition for teachers, too. For many schools and teachers, simply working harder is not going to change much, if anything, in student achievement. The other thing that competition implies is that some level of experimentation is needed to see what works. With that, it is also understood that some of the ideas, probably even many of the ideas that are tried, are not going to work and are going to fail the students. Is that acceptable? If we MUST have a voucher system, I believe that if parochial schools are going to take public money that they need to open their doors to a more diverse group of students (not just racially, but also economically and in terms of student ability and behavior). Parochial schools receiving public money also need to be held accountable based on testing and ratings systems, since that is supposedly the gold-standard in measuring public schools. And if a parochial school does not want to comply with these things, then they need to accept the fact that they won't be able to take students using vouchers.

One of my main problems with the Transformation Plan is that it's opening the door for charter schools to access local funding, not just state funding. Once that door has opened, it's never going to shut. And then you're really going to have an issue of public schools losing out on funding.

CMSD does need more options (as I mentioned above), but if/when these options become available, that does not mean that parents can simply drop their kids off at the door and expect a miracle based on being in a new or better school. That's the problem here that is not being addressed. You can shuffle kids around, parents can have more choices (including charters), but outcomes won't improve significantly until we find ways to get more parents to buy in to their child's education and to encourage them to achieve. Options? How many more "options" do they need? The CSD has several innovative schools. Many more than when my father attended Glenville or my cousins were at Glenville, JFK and Lincoln-West. My cousins' children attend Glenville Lincoln-West CSA 2 kids are here John Hay 4 kids are here Kennedy (This kid takes the bus from Glenville to Kennedy daily so he can participate in the Marketing program) The nerd school. One kid is as at the downtown campus and 2 are at Nela Park MLK my cousins are in Law and 2 of their kids attend this school Jane Adams/TriC Design School (2 kids are here) The Chef School (one kid is here) One was at East High, but I forgot where the engineer program moved, I think John Hay. There are so many kids I'm sure i'm missing some, but I believe there are plenty of options, in the CLE school district, if the kids and parents are committed to getting a solid education. I'm not going to say which one because I don't want to get in trouble, but I can tell you from first-hand experience and speaking with the staff that at least one of the schools that you listed has all but abandoned its "innovative" mission and has essentially gone back to being another dysfunctional neighborhood school. My understanding, though I can't confirm this personally, is that several other "innovative" schools have met the same fate. A lot of families in CMSD seem to choose a high school because it's the closest one to their homes, not because of any special offerings. If that's what they want to do, that's their choice, and as I said neighborhood schools should be available if that's what many parents want. However I still think that CMSD's magnet program needs to be strengthened...and I also think that they need some "alternative" schools for the most troubled students.

CMSD does need more options (as I mentioned above), but if/when these options become available, that does not mean that parents can simply drop their kids off at the door and expect a miracle based on being in a new or better school. That's the problem here that is not being addressed. You can shuffle kids around, parents can have more choices (including charters), but outcomes won't improve significantly until we find ways to get more parents to buy in to their child's education and to encourage them to achieve.