But thanks for exonerating me, Rambie.

I have to say I didn't notice a big difference in the two statements, but now that you clear it up I agree. Some people do tend to give a “pass” to those they agree with and hold those they disagree with to a higher standard.

I try NOT to do that but I've seen it here from time to time. Not you CS, nor George, and others on both sides.

And it's very common for the funds of such programs to go to the investigators, analysts etc. Often the best use of resources is to analyze and recommend, or to offer some kind of technical assistance or technology transfer. These could all be seen as going into the pockets of the organizations involved, but there's nothing wrong with that design per se.

I don't see any allegations, let alone proof, of malfeasance of any kind here. Things fail, we learn. Where's the smoking gun? In this discussion of standards, it seems you are expecting that successful and talented people have made no mistakes.

And the “mistake” if it was one, was just being on a nonprofit board.

Um, because holding your own side to standards at least as high as what you set for the other side (which is what I advocate) is the opposite of holding the other side to standards at least as high as what you set for your own.

Honestly, CStanley, do you think we don't know how to read?

I guess I can see the confusion because both of us argue for equal standards being applied on both sides-

Oh my. All I can is, by this time you should know how much I object whenever you misrepresent what I've said.

So please stop doing it.

The difference in what I'm saying is that when we all evaluate the guys that we oppose, we set high standards or scrutinize them thoroughly (because we're cynical about them, don't give them the benefit of the doubt.) That's the standard that I think we should apply to all politicians- the ones that we mostly agree with as well as the ones we don't agree with.

The way you phrased it was to use the standards that you apply to your own party (which for most people are pretty lax standards, if we're honest about it- because we often overlook things since we still think that party being in power is better than the other party being in power) when you evaluate members of the opposing party. I guess I can see the confusion because both of us argue for equal standards being applied on both sides- but which party you use to set the standard does make a difference as to whether that's a high bar or a low one.

This is what I said:

Shouldn't your standards for the other side be at least as high as the standards for your own side?

This is what you said:

Actually, George, I'd say the opposite-I think if people would hold their own side to the standards that they hold the other, we'd be in much better shape.

I'm not really why you think what you said is the opposite of what I said.

???

That's my impression, because from what I've seen the programs weren't even meant to put money directly into schools but instead into these external partner entities (which coincidentally happened to be voter registration groups and political donors and boosters of many of the principles involved in the foundation.)

My take away message was that it was a failure to actually improve anything but it was helpful it determining some future areas of study. (My instant thought was that during periods of rapid increase and decrease it is difficult to get statistical improvement. It could be that the overall increase was masking benefits of the program that would be seen once the increases stopped or even declined…of course this requires massive long term programs that are politically unpalatable and perhaps realistically impossible, but it's seen all the time in systems.)

From a scientific outlook where outcome failure is the norm, it looks like the whole ordeal wasn't a failure because they knew more than they did before. I am agnostic on whether it was a good use of resources because on one hand it seems like a lot, on the other only $40k per school doesn't seem like much at all….so unless there was a lot of graft…

BTW, I will correct my earlier statement about taxpayer funds because it apparently was private money. I think the issue is that a good bit of the money in the view of critics went to political cronies who were supportive of the agenda and politicians like Obama.

Basically it looks like they tried increasing resources to a lot of schools, saw that it wasn't working in most of them and then attempted to understand why and cut off the schools that didn't have the fundamental administrative requirements for success.

Its conclusion is that increased monetary support is NOT sufficient to cause improvement and talks about some broad overlapping changes that need to align to actually help, and it sounds optimistic that even though test scores hadn't improved, there was marked social improvement that could lead to higher scores in the future. I assume that specifics are scattered throughout the 200 page+ report that I don't have time to read right now.

Also I see that they only spent $35 million or so and much of the rest went into the successor: the Chicago Public Education Fund which looks like it is continuing a grant based model.

There is a place for Maverickiness in this world, but it’s not the Oval Office.

I think that you are absolutely correct Polimom. While there are many attributes about each candidate that I find less-than-desirable, Barack Obama is the guy who gives me hope that our country will get through the 'tough waters' in a calm and levelheaded way. The idea of a 'maverick' at the helm, using bluster and more aggressive rhetoric about our problems (not to mention with other world leaders) is increasingly frightening to me.

Kudos to you.

A couple of points now that I'm looking up the actual program. I've seen from multiple sources it says $50 million (matched with another $60 million from other private contributions), not $160 million and secondly they all say that it was from a private philanthropic foundation, not taxpayers. Where did you get the $160 million of tax payer money from?

The Foundation concluded that there was no improvement in performance from the money that was spent.

A few initial impressions:
Since it didn't work I'd be very interested in hearing from Obama why he thought it didn't work, what they learned from the experiment and why he thinks that his similar grant program (with taxpayer money) would help.

The fact that it didn't work doesn't mean it was a “waste.” It looks like the program ran more or less like it was supposed to and there was research done. The ideas didn't actually help education but from a scientific standpoint if the money was spent properly and helped give insight into education then it was money well spent….as long as we keep the conclusions in mind going forward.

If the Republicans were focused more on attacking his policies instead of associations then maybe Obama would be pressured to explain his position and thinking, and then they could have an argument about whether his ideas are good or not. So far it looks like nearly every one is just interested because Ayers was on the board and …well that's the extent of their thought process.

Shouldn't your standards for the other side be at least as high as the standards for your own side?

Mikkel: CAC= Chicago Annenburg Challenge. You have heard of that, no?

Thanks for your candor in the final paragraph.

Also about the education thing, the primary thing I've read him support is increased teacher pay based on merit and also grants that local districts would compete for and then continued funding would be based on increased performance and whether they can help expand the successes into other districts. Both of them had relatively low price tags and I thought were pretty conservative in approach (maybe he has changed things when I wasn't paying attention).

My primary thinking about Obama is from reading exposés on what drives his thought process and decision making, and how he changes positions based on new evidence.

Now I will be the first to admit that he makes “wrong” decisions (bailout bill, farm bill, etc.) because he is trying to balance political motives with expert opinion and sometimes the political ones win out. You could even argue that he is always going to err on doing unhelpful things for political reasons and I will admit that it is a leap of faith to support him eventually doing the right thing. On the other hand I have read parallel things about McCain and I don't see any ability to even synthesize new information and use it to alter his path.

If you want me to be honest though I am worried that Obama isn't really going to be that good either. I've often (and increasingly) wished that I could be an advisor because I think I understand his (at least publically projected) temperament and thought process enough that I could use some of my “depth and intelligence” (although I'd argue that I cheat because I have nothing on the line) to influence his views…..or if I'm unable to realize that he's not the one to have hopes for either.

Complaints about Pelosi's unwillingness to compromise are laughable in the face of President Bush's intransigence.

Unfortunately, I expect to find very few of those to support.

I agree with this. Hopefully this election will begin the process of change.