- 11,126
- Central Coast, NSW
- Com_Fox5
- EelX 5
This hardly happened with my school. Our school treated it as a test we couldn't properly study for and we only had 2 weeks of past questions.
America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 39,073 comments
- 1,710,176 views
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Danoff
Premium
- 34,007
- Mile High City
...under the current system with federal supervision... which you think is essential to.... reducing dropout rates?
...under the current system with federal supervision... which you think is essential to.... accomplishing... what exactly?
Is public PreK education an obligation to children? Private PreK and homeschooling at those ages isn't meeting our obligation? And why 20 states?
I don't see how federal oversight helps at all in this situation. If Washington is having trouble funding their education, Washington needs to find a way to fund it. Why does another layer of requirements somehow fix the problem? Do you think that Floridians need to be paying for kids in Washington? Washington got sued by people in Washington over Washington's budget problem, where does the federal government come in to this equation?
How? By funneling money away from taxpayers in some other state who were hoping to educate their kids? Which state is it that you think Washington is entitled to assistance from? Which state has such an amazing public school system that they're swimming in cash?
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
That's the approach that they're supposed to take. It doesn't mean that they all did. I have been in schools where faculties were told to spend a month focusing solely on NAPLAN results. Just because your school didn't do it, that doesn't mean that it's not a problem.
I think one extreme is as bad as the other.
The first thing that needs to happen is to recognise that Trump will not be able to fix this problem. Not because he's not up to the task, but because any education reform is going to take at least a decade. There's a reason why countries like Kazakhstan and Estonia are flourishing - following the collapse of the Soviet Union, they realised that they were on their own and so started planning for the needs of future generations. It took nearly thirty years, and they probably have some way to go, but it takes time to affect meaningful change.
The best thing Washington can do is tell the states where they want the education system to be in 2030, and then give them until 2020 to come up with ideas on how to do it. Starting in 2021, the reforms get introduced and reviewed in 2026 to make sure they're on the right track. By then there will be a new president, which will offer opportunities to change the system if need be. Rather than forcing the states to compete for funding, they should be encouraged to work in concert.
- 1,971
- Seattle, WA
Yes, absolutely.
On PreK education, not everyone has equal access or can afford Private Prek. 20 sates was a starting point for the Obama Administration in 2009, I believe the plan is to eventually expand access to Prek to all 50 states. Our obligation should be to provide a quality education to our kids, the science behind early learning is sound as has produced great results. The 36 to 60 month period of a child's brain development is a critical time for learning the basic foundation of education, which Prek education addresses. Shouldn't every kid should have equal access to this opportunity?
What requirements are you talking about? Can you be more specific. The primary purpose of the of the ED is to distribute funds to schools in needy states to insure equal access to a high quality education across the board. This is accomplished by looking at data and metrics, test scores from all 50 states and determining where the need is the greatest by state. How again is this a bad thing?
You do realize that the states that receive the most money from the US dept of education are typically lower tax revenue Red States like Alabama. Mississippi, Wyoming and more, right? The absolute inverse of your statements above are more likely to be true. It's far more likely that Florida doesn't pay for kids in Washington, but Washington (and California) pay for kids in Florida and Alabama. Please look at gross tax revenue by state and see who's contributing what before making uninformed statements like that. As for Washington's budgetary woes, Federal oversight helps in identifying disadvantaged areas and helps to make up the difference, which would be otherwise underfunded or perhaps not funded at all.
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/federal_revenue_by_state.php?chart=Z0&year=2014&units=b&rank=T
It's funny to me that the loudest voices decrying the ED come from senators of States who's schools would go bankrupt without assistance from the ED, they would be laying of teachers and closing schools, putting the kids at a disadvantage with less access to a decent public education.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 34,007
- Mile High City
No.
Our obligation is not to provide the highest quality education to our children based on the latest science (highest and obligation don't really belong in the same sentence). Our obligation (as parents, not as a society) is to provide our children with enough education that they can learn what they want to and function as adults. In the US, the public school system seems to be where tax dollars go to die. All we ever hear is that they need more money, and all we ever get are worse results and more complaints. I'm not a big fan of expanding it to younger kids based on the notion that it might offer an improvement. If it offers and improvement, great, people can pay for it.
If people can't afford to provide the level of quality of education for their children that they think their children deserve, they shouldn't have children. Raising a child is expensive, and it is not a human right.
Teaching intelligent design next to evolution.
Because I don't want a bigger chunk of my paycheck taken so that I can support some people in alabama that can't stop pumping out kids. Public schools are bad enough when they're funded locally. If I send my children to public school their cost is subsidized by the retirees, the single guy, and the cat lady down the street. None of those people should have to pay for my children. Spreading the wealth from states that obviously have way too much funding to states that have poor test scores doesn't seem like a good answer.
States picked at random, I don't care which states would benefit and which ones wouldn't. Everything that actually mattered about what I said was true.
It wasn't an uninformed statement, it was an example. Please read context and understand what's being said to you before going off like that.
Why is it that we're consistently able to convince ourselves that the answer is always to throw money at the problem? Low test scores? Here, have some bags of cash that we stole from the people in a state that has higher test scores.
I've never been more in favor of dismantling this department.
- 1,971
- Seattle, WA
I disagree, I believe every child deserves the same chance. As parents, most of us work and can't homeschool our kids, most of us are not qualified to do so anyway. So unless you have a degree in education and are able to homeschool, I don't see a point in bringing that up. For the vast majority of us that is simply not an option.
And there it really is, the truth behind your stance. Let's throw schools, kids and teachers under the bus, cause massive layoffs in underfunded red states by killing off the ED, all so we can teach the bible in school. I do appreciate your honesty though. Most would not openly admit that.
Similar argument to I don't have a car, why should I have to pay for roads, which never made sense to me. We pay for public infrastructure because in one way or another we all use it, directly or indirectly, same with public education.
Saying something is uninformed is not going off. The context was about Washington State receiving funds from fill-in-the-blank-state when the truth is we clearly pay out far more than our share, which I obviously don't consider a bad thing.
That's not how it works at all. In my opinion investing in our youth's education will provide a brighter future and ensure that American kids will grow up with more opportunities not less. Maybe then we can stop importing skilled foreign labor and hire within because our own kids will be intelligent enough to fill those jobs, but I bet you didn't think of that angle.
- 1,971
- Seattle, WA
The travel ban wouldn't have stopped Terrorists from coming here anyway.
- 3,308
- Kentucky
- Chrunch_Houston
The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals is flat out wrong.
I don't think the law could be much clearer.
"(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
Emphasis added
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOD...11-title8-chap12-subchapII-partII-sec1182.htm
I don't think the law could be much clearer.
"(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
Emphasis added
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOD...11-title8-chap12-subchapII-partII-sec1182.htm
- 1,905
- Missouri
- RoLnD79
He's like a freaking 13 year old kid. I never could stand him. Having said that, I disliked Hillary even more lol.
Would somebody please get him away from Twitter? It seems like that's a bigger risk to this country than any immigrant.
If he wasn't such a :censored:head about things, I like some of his ideas. He just can't keep his mouth shut, and is going about everything the absolute wrong way. I hate Politcal Correctness, so its great to have a president that says what he really thinks, it's just too bad it's him, and he doesn't have intelligent things to say.
The media bias is over the top, and deservedly so in a way I guess. It is great to see people freaking out over everything he does, and to read people bicker back and forth over what he says and does.
I'm all for tighter immigration control, and for some better option for border security. It just needs to be planned out a little(actually a lot) better.
- 24,614
- Anoka, MN
That actually doesn't seem as clear as you think it is considering it doesn't make it clear whether or not he actually needs probable cause or if he can enact a ban on merely a hunch.
It's worth challenging even if Trump wins just to show him people aren't going to let him do whatever he wants without putting up some opposition.
Same here, I was hoping this would have been the cycle where a third party finally came into play but alas that didn't happen. I would say hopefully with both parties in disarray 2020 could be the year but I'm not getting my hopes up.
As a side note, I wonder what the record is for the shortest time in office before an executive order is challenged? I'm guessing Trump's 20 has to be close if not the shortest.
- 6,060
- Simcoeace
You might want to consider it in more detail before making a pronouncement of that sort.
https://www.cato.org/blog/governmen...minating-against-immigrants-based-nationality
I think Trump is treading in treacherous waters here. I would be surprised if the present SCOTUS ruled in his favor on this. He would be better off re-crafting the EO to avoid a confrontation with the judiciary. Trump's ego may not be able grasp this, but he can't bully the judiciary AND the legislative branches & expect to emerge intact - not with the tenuous public support he has. He will drive more & more independents & traditional conservatives into the opposition camp.
What I worry about with Trump (among other things) is that he will precipitate a foreign adventure to marshal "patriotic support" - the old "wag the dog" scenario.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
And how has he satisifed "finds"? No evidence was offered to support the finding so he certainly didn't demonstrate foundation in court. It's noted in the judgement that no such evidence has been presented.
The court isn't wrong, Trump's lawyers were.
- 13,865
- Adelaide
- Neomone
I doubt it's intended to be a blank cheque to say "New Zealanders are a threat to our country, what with their wacky accents and crazy national animals!"
I imagine that the President still has to demonstrate a reasonable basis for a belief that any class of aliens banned are actually detrimental to the US. In times of war or crisis it's important that the President has the authority to act quickly in the nation's interest, but that doesn't mean that those decisions shouldn't be properly scrutinised and justified when able.
- 29,683
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
Freedom of speech is not simply the ability to say anything you want without consequence. It just isn't.
You can say "Gas everyone who has abortions and put all foreigners in extermination camps" but then people have every right to say "That is a horrendous thing to say, you're a terrible person and I'm leaving you/not your friend any more/sacking you."
Either of those three actions do not limit your ability to say horrible things. You can still say "Gas everyone who has abortions and put all foreigners in extermination camps" as much as you want; nobody is stopping you from doing so and the government isn't putting you in gaol for doing so but those three actions do foster the opportunity for you to consider what you have said and whether what you say is right or not.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
What it's like being a journalist in the Twitterstorm:
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...eets-are-a-wake-up-call-like-no-other/8260440
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...eets-are-a-wake-up-call-like-no-other/8260440
- 11,208
- Sweden
- eran0004
Without penalties, it is. The idea is that absolute freedom of speech allows people to share their opinions freely and honestly and if you censor yourself because you fear any kind of penalties (social, legal, economic, etc.) then the freedom is not absolute.
Absolute freedom of speech requires a great deal of tolerance, so it's not an easy thing to implement. It's not always desirable either, sometimes you need to limit it to protect from harm and the problem lies in finding a good balance between the freedom of speech and the desire to protect from harm.
- 13,865
- Adelaide
- Neomone
It's not that it requires tolerance. It's that it requires you to restrict other people's ability to respond to whatever horrible thing you've chosen to say.
If you say something that makes me feel that I don't want to work with you or that you're unfit to represent my company, I fail to see why I should be prevented from acting upon that. You don't have a right to a job, or the money a company may give you in the future. That's predicated on your skills and your behaviour.
- 1,905
- Missouri
- RoLnD79
Freedom of Speech kind of comes down to common sense in a way. You still have to follow rules with it at work and other public places. Also you can't take it to a point where you're harassing/stalking someone, there are harassment laws and cyberbulling laws now too.
In my own experiences, usually when someone drops the freedom of speech card, they are the ones being out of line with something.
In my own experiences, usually when someone drops the freedom of speech card, they are the ones being out of line with something.
- 29,172
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Similar threads
Latest Posts
-
-
-
Assetto Corsa Modder Creates Real Road Circuit Using Photogrammetry- Latest: Perico Lospa
-
-
