|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2004 21:02:32 GMT -5
Iraq...
America...
I see not resemblence. Iraq crashes. Not our fault. America is our country, and Iraq isn't. If we leave and for some reason it fails as a country, we hae no reason to be blamed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Jul 8, 2004 7:18:24 GMT -5
Heh, I always find it interesting to learn about other countries! And yes, we have parties here too: Bush is a memeber of the Republicans, while Kerry is a member of the Democrats. What do you mean by "ruling" one state? Do you mean, the majority of people that state vote or voted for a certain party? 'Cause I guess it's kinda like that here... only figurativly (like, people in New York are more likely to vote Democratic, whereas, people in Mississippi are more likely to vote Republican). Well, very cool! Thanks! Yes, the majority of people in that state voted for that party. That means that that party has almost total sway in that state. |
|
|
|
Post by Oily on Jul 8, 2004 13:31:16 GMT -5
No qualfied person would want to be leader. I mean, look at it. Well paid, but less so perhaps than the best city jobs. Boring. A lot of stress. Very long hours. Lots of flak from the media and tons of difficult choices. Little privacy. Only in office for a few years perhaps. Years and years of working your way up the political ranks. Iraq... America... I see not resemblence. Iraq crashes. Not our fault. America is our country, and Iraq isn't. If we leave and for some reason it fails as a country, we hae no reason to be blamed. You could be though. Countries need a huge infrastructure - they need electricity and a proper economy and strong, enforced laws. If you come in and take everything like that away, you have to put it all back up before you go. Or the country will collapse, and then people turn to extremists. |
|
|
|
Post by enigmaticviolinist on Jul 8, 2004 13:34:57 GMT -5
If you think about it, Bush messed up our country...our economy ws better under Clinton, education was better under Clinton, and there were tons more jobs under Clinton. In fact, there would be no war if Bush was in power.
I'm yellowlabs765 and I approved this message.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2004 22:26:21 GMT -5
Yellowlabs-I totally agree, the economy was better under Clinton. The No Child Left Behind Act could screw up someone's chances of actually having faith and believing they're smart. "Gasp, Billy! GASP! You got 134 on this test! You're hopless! Thanks to Bush." They might actually be the brightest person in the world and no ever be able to figure it out because of that stupid test.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jul 9, 2004 1:27:51 GMT -5
Bush is just glad he doesn't have to take the test himself. He would get into the record books as the "Dumbest guy to walk. EVER"
|
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Jul 9, 2004 3:11:31 GMT -5
Yellowlabs-I totally agree, the economy was better under Clinton. The No Child Left Behind Act could screw up someone's chances of actually having faith and believing they're smart. "Gasp, Billy! GASP! You got 134 on this test! You're hopless! Thanks to Bush." They might actually be the brightest person in the world and no ever be able to figure it out because of that stupid test. Pardon my ignorance, but... what's the No Child Left Behind Act? |
|
|
|
Post by Buddy on Jul 9, 2004 10:33:19 GMT -5
Pardon my ignorance, but... what's the No Child Left Behind Act? It's hard to explain, really. Truthfully, I don't understand it very much, myself. It has to do with reforming education. I know it does this: it places more emphasis on test scores. And it does something with holding schools accountable for their actions and for the children that fail. I believe that it forces states and schools to work harder at teaching their children. The problem I believe that goes along with it, however, is that it doesn't give the schools more money to do it. The schools have to do more with less. I know it also works on this principle: if you're school does better, it gets more money. Good idea, right? Well, the problem is, the schools that are failing and actually need the money don't get it. So they continue to fail. It's a Catch-22 situation - the school needs money to do better, but can't get the money unless it does better in the first place. I believe that's the very general idea(s) of the No Child Left Behind Act. I really don't understand it very well, however, so I may be a bit wrong. Would any one happen to know of any sites that explain the act in detail? I'd really like to know more about it... EDIT: Oh! And I believe that it says somewhere that every state must have their own test. I don't really get this part, since I thought part of the idea was to try and make the education system more nationaly-unified... |
|
|
|
Post by thegreenmooseofdoom on Jul 9, 2004 12:48:50 GMT -5
EDIT: Oh! And I believe that it says somewhere that every state must have their own test. I don't really get this part, since I thought part of the idea was to try and make the education system more nationaly-unified... Indeed. Before the Act, we only had to take a pretest and a final for each class. Now we have to take all sorts of other tests, a post test, a final, a pre test, the GHSGT, etc. etc. It's ridiculous because they are all basically testing over the same thing. We didn't even count the post test this year because there was something about the teachers not recieving enough information about the test to teach all the covered areas... so our state BoE chairperson said they wouldn't count the test, yet we still had to take it. 9_9 Waste of time if I ever saw one. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2004 17:27:45 GMT -5
A lot of teachers have actually lied about the grades kids get so that the school will get more money. That hurts the kid, because in the end the kid will pass a class in which they completely failed and learned nothing from.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Jul 9, 2004 21:52:57 GMT -5
Indeed. Before the Act, we only had to take a pretest and a final for each class. Now we have to take all sorts of other tests, a post test, a final, a pre test, the GHSGT, etc. etc. It's ridiculous because they are all basically testing over the same thing. We didn't even count the post test this year because there was something about the teachers not recieving enough information about the test to teach all the covered areas... so our state BoE chairperson said they wouldn't count the test, yet we still had to take it. 9_9 Waste of time if I ever saw one. You mean in one year? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2004 0:17:02 GMT -5
Crystal-The No Child Left Behind Act is a law that makes each state give a test to each 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10th graade student in each state(if I forgot a grade or something, please correct me.) It averages a person's reading abilitiy and mathmatic ability by the other kids your age in your school, your county, your state, and, finally, kid's across the US. They are really crappy tests that make no sense. "I'd like to return this red sweater becuase it is missing a pocket." Uh-huh...yeah...  |
|
|
|
Post by sharakh on Jul 10, 2004 0:42:10 GMT -5
The problem with the public school system, as it was leaning towards during my high school years and as it definitely is now, is that teachers are no longer meant to teach their particular subject. Their job is now to make certain their students pass the tests. So a great deal of what used to be a fairly well-rounded curriculum is cut in order to make time to grind the answers to the questions on the test into the students' heads. As such, people graduate with less applicable knowledge, and society continues to degrade... Yay. (Not really a big fan of said Act, if you couldn't tell.  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2004 0:45:25 GMT -5
The problem with the public school system, as it was leaning towards during my high school years and as it definitely is now, is that teachers are no longer meant to teach their particular subject. Their job is now to make certain their students pass the tests. So a great deal of what used to be a fairly well-rounded curriculum is cut in order to make time to grind the answers to the questions on the test into the students' heads. As such, people graduate with less applicable knowledge, and society continues to degrade... Yay. (Not really a big fan of said Act, if you couldn't tell. ) If you asked anyone in the states who has taken the test, they'd most probably agree with you. |
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Jul 10, 2004 1:51:48 GMT -5
The problem with the public school system, as it was leaning towards during my high school years and as it definitely is now, is that teachers are no longer meant to teach their particular subject. Their job is now to make certain their students pass the tests. So a great deal of what used to be a fairly well-rounded curriculum is cut in order to make time to grind the answers to the questions on the test into the students' heads. As such, people graduate with less applicable knowledge, and society continues to degrade... Yay. (Not really a big fan of said Act, if you couldn't tell. ) Ah. I see now. I don't see the point of averaging out the stuff for the state actually. That's kinda silly. Though to be honest, Sharakh, when I read your post, the first thing I thought was: "You mean in the US they don't do that? How unfair!" Um. Yeah. Test results mean a lot here.... I remember crying for ages once and getting really depressed back in primary school because I got bad results in Math which were below par for my normal standards. And considering my entire school life from kindergarten onwards has been focused and building up for t3h biggy test which occurs next year, will determine what I do with my life, and is causing me to have a six-day schoolweek now, I oddly enough have not much sympathy. Quote my teacher from the first half of that extremely long ranty run-on sentence. Yeah. I rant a lot now about how miserable my life is. Ignore. It's not actually that bad if you compare with the Singaporean students. I shouldn't be complaining really. I mean, if I have to suffer two years to get good results, I'll suffer gladly. |
|
)