Forums | MacLife

Farmerkev wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Based on getting what he wanted through Congress, he'll go down as one of the most successful.


Ponder that for a minute.

But he's not a Football Quarterback. He's not evaluated on how much of his legislation makes it through congress, he's evaluated on how successful those programs and policies were towards their stated goal, and how much they benefited the people of this country.

The economy has grown.
The US hasn't suffered another terrorist attack.
There is some evidence that schools are getting a tiny bit better.

I could go on but the point is made. Regardless of our personal feelings about the man, future historians will look at the numbers and trends.

So, you think bush has done a good job and is a good president?

Wow

If the value of the dollar is falling, isn't better to owe than to be owed?

Kev, I sent you a PM and I've removed the rest.

smilr wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

There is some evidence that schools are getting a tiny bit better.

Do you have a source for that? Everyone I've ever talked to who works in the education field has derided No Child Left Behind as being ineffective and shortsighted and damaging.

I'd like to see some actual data on its effects on our education system. So far your's is the first claim I've seen that education in the U.S. has improved during the second Bush administration.

http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/importa … rking.html
among others. There are as many that point out faults. That's why I said there is some evidence it is working, the measurements show improvement.

There are political reasons for those in schools not to like "no child left behind" - namely the schools lose money if they don't do their job.

This part of it, however - is BS:

The Act also requires that the schools distribute the name, home phone number and address of every student enrolled to military recruiters, unless the student (or the student's parent) specifically opts out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind

It's not the purpose of the education system to come up with military recruitment lists.

Oakland, CA - it is (or at least was, haven't read about it recently) common for the public schools to graduate students who can not properly read beyond a 3rd grade level.

If teaching the test means those kids learn how to read, then it is an improvement.

The lesson plans they tried in Oakland - teaching Ebonics.
Yeah - that prepares them for the work force.

Look.
We're up to almost $9,000 a student now, for a 30 student classroom that is $270,000 per year.
Think about that.
We aren't getting our moneys worth.
We should be demanding measurable results.
America spends more and has lower test scores than any other first world nation.
Something is seriously wrong here and I don't think throwing even more money at it is the answer.

Tallgeese wrote:

resedit wrote:

The lesson plans they tried in Oakland - teaching Ebonics.
Yeah - that prepares them for the work force.

linkplzthx

I'll try to find one - it was some time ago, and it resulted many ebonics related definition jokes floating around - perhaps you remember them, or perhaps it was a bay area thing.

IE

rectum - I stole two cars and I rectum both

remember those jokes floatin' around? Quite common on FM radio talk shows in the 90's (IE KSJO when they were still rock, etc.)

Farmerkev wrote:

smilr wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

There is some evidence that schools are getting a tiny bit better.

Do you have a source for that? Everyone I've ever talked to who works in the education field has derided No Child Left Behind as being ineffective and shortsighted and damaging.

I'd like to see some actual data on its effects on our education system. So far your's is the first claim I've seen that education in the U.S. has improved during the second Bush administration.

http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/importa … rking.html
among others. There are as many that point out faults. That's why I said there is some evidence it is working, the measurements show improvement.

Thank you for the promptly posted link.

I'm not certain that Ed.Gov is the most impartial source where NCLB is concerned, but I acknowledge that they are most likely better judges than I.

Studies and actual application have shown that incorporating students' dialect into instruction helps them learn Standard English faster and they remember it more than dismissing their dialect as "bad English".

Mom. Came over from Germany speaking only German. Not allowed to speak German in school. Learned English very quickly, soon the top of her class.

My brother - went to Germany in military. Took his family with him, bought a house there. Kids went to a German school, not the school for military families. They were there for two years, all his kids now speak fluent German - and they speak it well, because they were forced to use proper German in the classroom.

Excuse me if I don't think those studies are worth much.

I don't care what degrees you have.
There are also plenty of studies that show the fastest way to learn a language is to surround yourself in it as completely as possible, learning a language involves thinking in that language, and that happens fastest when you are forced to because you can not communicate if you don't. If you allowed to stick to your native language for everything else, you rely on your native language and do not learn the new language nearly as quickly.

I'm guessing you've seen those studies too if you have the education you have. It's also what was common practice before our education system went down the smurf.

Tallgeese wrote:

Whatever. I'm not bothering to argue about studies and evidence to someone who doesn't believe the scientific method is reliable.

What, you mean not everything can be explained with an analogy to reptiles or some personal experience?