Meh. You say that, but I think you're overlooking how little many taxpayers think they/their kids need schooling, and I think you've overestimating people's ability to just up and leave a locality -- let alone the entire state -- at a whim.
One aspect of arguing things on a forum like this is that even the dumbest of posters here (regardless of who you think that is) has an understanding of things and an educational/functional level beyond most Americans.
Admittedly, my cynicism runs deep.
Also, I find myself asking myself again why I even care, as children are not in my future, and I'd love to not have to pay state/local/property taxes for those little ***.
Random Politics & Religion #00
|
Random Politics & Religion #00
Ramyrez said: » volkom said: » Ramyrez said: » We're not talking about post-high school education here. We're talking about the basics of life. have common sense. don't be an ***. play well with others. be financially responsible. don't have kids or get married if you can't afford it sorta thing? To an exent. A basic understanding of civics, math, English. Some level of appreciation/involvement in the arts couldn't hurt so you have some well-rounded human beings. It's part of the reason I'm so vehemently against home schooling. Part of school is the social element, learning to play ball in a field of peers where not everyone is going to like you, and some people will be downright adversarial. Home schooled and "specialized" school kids (kids who went to the "gifted" schools or art/sports/etc. schools) never seem to do real well on their own in the world in my experience. I had a friend back in middle/high school who's older brother did the whole home schooling thing. He got me interested in counterstrike and other stuff. But anywho his parents had him spend a ton of time with friends and do social things. He ended up going to rice university but his parents suffered for it. litterally ate canned food for 2 years and parents divorced because the mom couldn't handle the lifestyle etc etc~ I've personal experience with home schooled/specialized schooled individuals in various times and ways in my life, as well as some parents (MDs, actually) who homeschooled all of their children.
Well, "homeschooled". For a while, anyhow. They also lived in a Christian commune for a while, so they're a little out there anyhow. Good doctors, just crazy people. Social mobility or not, politicians care about this little thing called reelection. If your state guts education, you can elect better leaders.
Ramyrez said: » as children are not in my future They are, even if they're not your children. No one benefits from a stupid population.
[+]
Ramyrez said: » Yeah, recognizing Jerusalem as part of Israel -- or siding with any party in that conflict in such a way -- couldn't have massive repercussions in the world. Why don't we go ahead and tacitly do just that for the sake of some "feels"? Because really, that's what this issue boils down to. As for the "broader" issue, that's nothing new. And given they refused to see the case and thereby simply upheld the lower court's ruling, it doesn't mean it couldn't be brought to them at a later date in a different context in which they'd render a more definitive ruling in the matter. Leviathan.Chaosx said: » All hail King Obama and his decision on what governments he alone wishes to recognize! Also, red herring statement. This applies to all presidents, not just the current one who is in his last 18 months in office. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/08/supreme-court-israel-passport/21649243/ said: "The power to recognize or decline to recognize a foreign state and its territorial bounds resides in the president alone," Kennedy said, citing examples from the French Revolution in 1793 to President Jimmy Carter's recognition of the People's Republic of China in 1979. "Recognition is an act with immediate and powerful significance for international relations, so the president's position must be clear. Congress cannot require him to contradict his own statement regarding a determination of formal recognition." ... President George W. Bush signed a massive foreign relations law in 2002 that included a section stating that for Americans born in Jerusalem, "the secretary shall, upon the request of the citizen or the citizen's legal guardian, record the place of birth as Israel." However, Bush indicated he would ignore that provision as unconstitutional, and the Obama administration agrees.
[+]
Lakshmi.Rooks said: » Ramyrez said: » as children are not in my future They are, even if they're not your children. No one benefits from a stupid population. There are certainly people who benefit from a stupid population. They just benefit at a staggering cost to others, and usually don't stay around for the aftermath.
[+]
I stand corrected.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Social mobility or not, politicians care about this little thing called reelection. If your state guts education, you can elect better leaders. Have you looked at state elections recently? A large portion run unopposed, even more only ever face minor competition, and the rest just rework the districts at will to curb any chance of competition.
[+]
[+]
Lakshmi.Rooks said: » Ramyrez said: » as children are not in my future They are, even if they're not your children. No one benefits from a stupid population. Yes, yes. You're preaching to the choir. It would just be convenient to ignore that aspect like so many other people seem to do and profit from it... Odin.Jassik said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Social mobility or not, politicians care about this little thing called reelection. If your state guts education, you can elect better leaders. Have you looked at state elections recently? A large portion run unopposed, even more only ever face minor competition, and the rest just rework the districts at will to curb any chance of competition. Yeah, and how many of those states have gutted education to the degree Ramy is so afraid of? If you're so gung-ho about passing off control of education to a centralized government, you're going to have to do more than scare people with hypotheticals.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Yeah, and how many of those states have gutted education to the degree Ramy is so afraid of? If you're so gung-ho about passing off control of education to a centralized government, you're going to have to do more than scare people with hypotheticals. Why? Fear of hypotheticals is a huge part of what's given the government so much power in the past 20 years... Department of Homeland Security, anyone? TSA? Border patrol?* *the border patrol one is really irritating, especially in places where you wouldn't expect. Like Lake Erie. Apparently the ones in places like that think they need to be hypervigilant and overly-reactionary to all the things. Sorry. Personal anecdote. Bahamut.Ravael said: » Yeah, and how many of those states have gutted education to the degree Ramy is so afraid of? Texas is close. Yeah, Ramy. And look at how well those things are received. I appreciate the ammo though.
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Social mobility or not, politicians care about this little thing called reelection. If your state guts education, you can elect better leaders. Have you looked at state elections recently? A large portion run unopposed, even more only ever face minor competition, and the rest just rework the districts at will to curb any chance of competition. Yeah, and how many of those states have gutted education to the degree Ramy is so afraid of? If you're so gung-ho about passing off control of education to a centralized government, you're going to have to do more than scare people with hypotheticals. http://nces.ed.gov/edfin/graph_index.asp Can't be arsed to grab it and plot it at the moment to see what the result is. Bahamut.Ravael said: » Yeah, Ramy. And look at how well those things are received. I appreciate the ammo though. Yeah. It's not like Rick Perry is still massively popular in spite of being criminal... We're straying a tad from the point, though. You have to justify taking control away from the states and giving it to our ever-bloating, ever-inefficient national government.
Yeah. Why let the federal government *** up something the states can *** up all on their own with no help, right?
You're right, at least, in your statement that ideally the government would let teachers and other educational professionals develop things and leave their businessmen/lawery noses out of it except for enforcing it, and that this eventuality is unlikely. Hell, states are just as bad. Still government. Privatize all the things! That could never go poorly! I assume you don't think that all states have it bad. It would just be screwing it over for the people you think are doing it right.
Bahamut.Ravael said: » I assume you don't think that all states have it bad. It would just be screwing it over for the people you think are doing it right. I do, in fact, think that while some individual districts and teachers do well by their students, as a whole the United States handles education very poorly and sweeping reforms are needed across the board.
[+]
To clarify on just one of those issues, an anecdote.
You'll note Pennsylvania's spending is well above average per student. I went to a state university where the vast majority of students were in-state peers. Yet when I went to college, there were people who were in English 101 my freshman year -- that is, they tested out of English 100 (remedial English) -- and their writing skills were appalling. Some of the lowest performers in my own high school graduating class were better than these people (and I know this for a fact, as both my high school classes and this particular college course both had heavy peer-review elements). Even when the money is being spent, it's being spent ineffectively or distributed poorly. And that's to say nothing of the socioeconomic factors of being in poor inner city school districts in places like Philadelphia. Bahamut.Ravael said: » We're straying a tad from the point, though. You have to justify taking control away from the states and giving it to our ever-bloating, ever-inefficient national government. yeah because they did so well with all of the other things we entrusted them to do
[+]
And Utah has very low spending per student but manages to do well on standardized testing, along with having a decent high school graduation rate.
Bahamut.Ravael said: » I assume you don't think that all states have it bad. It would just be screwing it over for the people you think are doing it right. Shiva.Nikolce said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » We're straying a tad from the point, though. You have to justify taking control away from the states and giving it to our ever-bloating, ever-inefficient national government. yeah because they did so well with all of the other things we entrusted them to do The same could be said of the federal. What's your point? Bahamut.Ravael said: » And Utah has very low spending per student but manages to do well on standardized testing, along with having a decent high school graduation rate. I put little to no stock in standardized testing. Teaching to improve standardized test scores is an extraordinarily poor pedagogical method. And per this page, they're middle of the road, and below national average for low income students, albeit barely. |
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.