Republicans to Obama: "It's none of your business" if high school kids dropout

Education out of all things is a state matter.. You do not want government controlled education- the government always screws things up- it is a state and local matter

 

Anyone else noticing that whenever conservatives find an issue they don't think they can win federally they automatically default to "states rights"?

Secondly, "the government" and "federal government" should not be interchangeable in our lexicon. The state has a government, municipalities have governments, both of which can screw up just as badly as the national government if we enact stupid policies and don't participate in the civic process.

 

That's because it gives citizens the option to live in a system they find appealing while staying in America. That's why the country is divided into states. To each his own.

I believe Realjad was making a joke and making the same point you are.

The OP shows the Republican saying 'it's none of Obama's business' which is correct because education is a state issue. The reason governments at all levels should ignore such a stupid piece of legislation is because it limits the options of the individual. These are two different discussions which i think Realjad is not understanding (though I could be misinterpreting what he is saying).

 

I never stated that anyone is suggesting forcing graduation.

My only argument is that a 16 year old should be learning something.

High school, trade, college, whatever. Doesn't matter. Just not sitting around painting fences and floating down river.

 

Why not provide a choice?
Like someone earlier mentioned before...
2-year programs for those wanting to pursue manual labor jobs.
4-year high school programs for those wanting to pursue white-collar (esque) jobs.

Why force dumb kids to go to school? They can provide a valuable boost to our manufacturing sector.

 

School would be so much better if the kids who didn't want to go to school and just caused trouble (fights, gangs, sexual harassment, bullying) stayed out of school, and teachers had more time to spend on the students who were there to learn.

 

Oh, you mean like Ronald Reagan withholding highway funding unless the states changed the legal drinking age to 19, and then 21??? The hypocrisy of the Right is truly astounding at times. They are so blinded in their unjustified hatred for Obama that they will literally say anything, anything as long as it's against Obama. It's a real simple way to look at life- Obama works in the federal government, so anything he says is a reflection of the federal government, which according to the conservatives should be reduced to the size of a U.S. Post Office station in Somerville, Texas, so literally anything, anything, anything Obama says is bad.

Obama: "I am against gay marriage."
Conserv: "It's none of the fed's business!"

Obama: "I am for arming every citizen."
Conserv: "Who is he to say what citizens should do?!?"

Obama: "I think we should reduce the federal government to near-zero. Eliminate all the departments except for 3 (we'll let Rick Perry decide which 3 to keep, because we really only want to keep 2), reduce the Supreme Court to 3, and cut Congresss to 27."
Conservative: "I think the states should be the ones to decide how big the federal government is. Obama should keep his federal position out of the federal government's business."

Obama: "No, changed my mind. I call for a ban on all handguns, legalize abortion through the third trimester, expand welfare by 6 trillion, and give the states zero power over any decisions. In agreement that these policies stay on the books for 4 years, I will not seek reelection."
Conservative: "Obama was one of our best Presidents."


(slurp)

 

Yes, I mean exactly like that.

 

50% of school funding goes to 5% of the student population (at the bottom but also at the top end)

think how much better education could be provided for 95% of the American population (across all racial and socio-economic spectrums) if America didn't have a stick up its ass

those of you who actually don't have kids are going to be laughing your asses off when you see how today's indoctrinated teachers approach education. if any of you actually have smarter kids, they actually r****d their progress because being smart will supposedly socially stunt them. the goal isn't to motivate kids but to make sure the entire herd grazes along at the same speed... I guess 3/4 speed of Europe and 1/2 of Asia? not sure but it's really awesome

 

Wouldn't those kids do those things anyway outside of school? I really don't get his idea that somehow letting troubled kids opt out of school will actually be better for society.

 

Where are you getting your information from? Have you taken education classes? Do you have a masters in education? A doctorate?

Please show me which part of teacher indoctrination instructs teachers to not motivate but slow down smarter children.

 

He's correct about slowing them down, he's not correct about the reason. It's not some kind of social stigma/stunting. It's because in American public education we cater to the lowest common denominator. So, basically, a classroom is only as strong as its weakest link.

 

I have never seen a clearer demonstration of libertarian stupidity.

 

Well that's not accurate according to the way teachers are instructed to teach. It may or may not happen that way in practice depending on the teacher and school I guess. But the instruction is supposed to be differentiated so that the more advanced students will be challenged and grow. Their work will have a higher level of rigor, and more in-depth complexities to it. In no classroom that I'm aware of is instruction geared to the lowest common denominator.

The standards may be set, but the instruction is geared to give all students access to those standards and make it challenging for the lowest student as well as the highest. It's all research based pedagogy and methodology used.

Obviously it takes practice and more planning to differentiate instruction that much, so in practice it will be done at varying levels, but it's not part of the curriculum or instruction to educators that instruction should only be geared to the lowest common denominator. The opposite is actually true.

 

" Barry is a damn liar"

Mr Esteban on President Pookie

 

Mr Blade, you don't need a master or a phd when you have common sense!

 

That's a nice concept, but that's not how it goes in practice. Ever heard of "teach to the test"? In our classrooms, a disproportionate amount of time and effort is spent trying to get the lowest achieving students "over the hump", while the best and brightest and most eager wither on the vine. It's not a knock on teachers, it's a knock on our priorities and the system.

 

I agree there is way too much emphasis on the test. That does have a negative effect. I just think that it's too broad of a brush stroke to say that's not how it happens in practice. There are plenty of classrooms where the differentiated instruction does happen.

Though, I think in any classroom there could be more done if the test wasn't always the sole evaluation tool used.

 

But what he typed appeared to be ignorant and not common sense or anything associated with an educational background.

Common sense doesn't tell you how teachers are instructed to teach. Since his comment addressed that, I wanted to know if it was just someone spouting off or if he had actual experience and knowledge.