| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
The nation's new internal security apparatus monitors the movements of politicians from the opposition party. The ruling party attempts to mandate a system that would perpetuate its rule. The ruling party's legislative leader habitually declares that his will is the law. Sounds like the Philippines under the late Ferdinand Marcos, or some other benighted banana republic, doesn't it? It's Texas, of course. That's why those 51 tough, determined Democrats departed Austin for a short motel vacation in Ardmore, Okla. Those legislators had no intention of ratifying Tom DeLay's crooked redistricting plan, which is what would have been expected of them had they showed up to fulfill a quorum. (The origins of the dispute are reviewed with admirable simplicity and dispassion here. A Dallas Democrat explains why she holed up in Ardmore here.) How literally crooked is the DeLay map? Just examine this illustration}, with its full-color assortment of doglegs, islands and cul-de-sacs. What the map doesn't show is how the DeLay plan intentionally slices up naturally contiguous districts -- such as Travis County (Austin), where the Republicans' sole aim is to unseat liberal Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett. But there's really no need to debate the purpose of the DeLay plan, since subtlety isn't one of the House majority leader's notable traits. (The Prince he ain't.) His explanation was as simple as his mind: "I'm the majority leader, and we want more seats," he told the Austin American-Statesman last week. He also talks about providing more seats for blacks and Latinos, but the notion that DeLay cares about minority empowerment is too far-fetched for anyone to take seriously. (It was dealing with DeLay that finally drove Oklahoma's J.C. Watts, the lonely black Republican representative, into retirement.) Under the constitutional procedures created by the nation's founders, a partisan leader's lust for power wouldn't be sufficient reason to redraw an entire state's congressional districting map three years after the census. Jefferson, Madison and Adams surely would have been disgusted by DeLay. Why he or anyone else now thinks the Democrats should collaborate in their own gerrymandered destruction is a mystery. Blithering cable hosts may or may not understand what's going on in Austin, but Texans do. Many in the Lone Star state who supported George W. Bush for president are justly appalled by the latest episode of GOP thuggery, including the editorial boards of the Houston Chronicle and the Dallas Morning News, both of which endorsed Bush in 2000. For a sense of reasonable opinion in Texas, read this May 13 editorial from the Dallas daily, a fairly conservative paper, urging the Republican legislative boss to behave decently: "House Speaker Tom Craddick can halt the work stoppage in Austin. All he has to do is play by the rules on redistricting ... Mr. Craddick should resist pressure from Congress to contaminate a generations-old census-based exercise by converting it into an ill-considered purely partisan power grab. He should commit to leave Texas' political boundaries alone, and protesting Democrats should promptly return to the hive." |
Rivera said. "I'm making a conscious decision to take this whole Judaism thing seriously. I think the Jews need me right now." Dulce! |
|
"oh, i know what'll really get people going, decks of cards with people's faces on them! hillarious! take THAT Saddam! take THAT Dems!" i know whenever i'm enraged by something, i run out and get a few thousand decks of cards printed up. |
By Molly Ivins Creators Syndicate They just went too far, that's all. This legislative session has been as brutal, callous and indifferent to the welfare of the weakest, frailest, youngest and oldest Texans as it is possible to get. The level of pure meanness is just stunning. They have just gone too far. The session was pretty well summed up by Rep. Senfronia Thompson when she illustrated what was going on by taking the House rulebook to the podium with her and dropping it on the floor. There is no rule of procedure, fairness, common sense or decency that has been observed by the Republican majority in the Texas House. In case you hadn't noticed, every major newspaper in this state has criticized the plans and performance of the Legislature this session, often in harsh language. Those wild-eyed radicals at The Dallas Morning News and the Houston Chronicle are just disgusted with the tacky display that these people have been putting on. There is no excuse for this, and blaming it on the budget shortfall will not wash. We all knew going in that some terribly hard choices would have to be made, but what in the name of heaven was the governor thinking when he had handicapped people arrested? These were citizens who came to their capital to protest budget cuts affecting them, and they get arrested. Maybe it was because they were in wheelchairs -- don't even have to be hauled away. They can just be rolled away. Most of us thought it was pretty funny when Rep. Debbie Riddle popped out with her now-classic statement: "Where did this idea come from that everybody deserves free education, free medical care, free whatever? It comes from Moscow, from Russia. It comes straight out of the pit of hell." Amusing as that was, the House has been doing its dead-level best to destroy both public education and public health. They've taken 250,000 poor children off the Children's Health Insurance Program, and the schools are in dire straits. As the Austin American-Statesman pointed out in an editorial, these same fine thinkers did manage to find $10 million to appropriate for cow research and $300 million for Gov. Rick Perry to woo companies to Texas. Of course, there have been some lovely moments we can celebrate, like the day that House Speaker Tom Craddick decided that the new ethics reform law should be debated in a back-room, closed-door session. Amazingly enough, the proposed ethics law was weakened and watered down behind the closed doors! I think a special salute for clear thinking should go to the House for its amazing decision to cut the program that pays for medications for mentally ill people who are out of prison on probation or parole. Is this brilliant? Now these people will be wandering around the state without their meds. The latest flap over a congressional redistricting map was the proverbial last straw for the Democrats, more than 50 of whom left the state or went into hiding Sunday to break the quorum, thus bringing legislative business to a halt. Believe me, stopping the Legislature from functioning at this point is high public service. Craddick called it a "stunt." The R's have been pulling stunts every day of this session, and they don't write it off as payback for heavy-handed Democratic rule. Speaker Pete Laney ran a fair House, and everyone knew it. The way things got to such a sorry pass is that the R's have been running on rote, lock-step voting. No Democratic amendment gets considered on its merits, no matter how sensible it is. Shell bills get introduced, and then whole sections are amended on the floor, in a parody of legislative process. The creepy thing about the far-right Republicans, who are definitely in the majority in the House, is not that they are dismantling government because they won't raise taxes -- they're dismantling government because they think it shouldn't help people. They really think that health and human services should not be provided. It's an old line among liberals that anti-choice people care more about the unborn than they do about the born, but I'm telling you that it's not just some clever line -- these people are writing it into the state budget. |
Do I think our government should do more for schools or health care? Yes, of course I do. I think that our children are getting robbed in that aspect, especially if you have seen the crap that I have. Teachers are only allowed to help kids during certain times and aren't able to say things under fear of losing their teaching credentials. This particular brand of shit is from Texas new state test system otherwise known as TAKS. Don't remember what it stands for, sorry. But then some of it just sounds like crappy name calling. The article is OK, but I take it with a grain of salt. You just can't believe everything you read. |
Why would anyone lie about the public proceedings of a legislature? It's all easily verifiable. Debbie Riddle's comment especially is all over the place, even on texassportfishing.com for goodness sake. Skepticism is generally a good thing, but blind skepticism is not. btw, TAKS stands for Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. |
My skepticism isn't blind. My skepticism resides in the words she chooses to use when it comes to the things she feels emotionally about, or her image of what is right and what is wrong. You are being to quick to judge what I am thinking without asking me specifically what I am skeptic about. You are jumping to conclusions of what is going through my mind right now and you are incorrect in your assumptions. |
What, specifically, do you disbelieve? |
I disagree with her moral views as to why some of these things are so horrible, or if not moral view than view of right vs. wrong. "Debbie Riddle popped out with her now-classic statement: "Where did this idea come from that everybody deserves free education, free medical care, free whatever? It comes from Moscow, from Russia. It comes straight out of the pit of hell." OK, the whole pit of hell thing is funny, but at the same time, I think there is a point when Debbie Riddle (I don't know much about her and am basing this on what is said here) makes her comment of how we expect free education, medical, etc. I personally pay for these things, education and health insurance, and it would be nice if it was free, but it isn't and I don't necessarily know if it should be free. Partially agree with both sides on that one......skepticism. I could probably go thru this whole article and pull out more examples and explain them, but that would take forever, and would be boring. I am just asking you Tiggy, to not jump to judge what I am thinking so quickly. But then again, I am sure that there are fundamental things we will politically disagree on, and this may open up a can of worms anyways, so I am limiting what I have to say. |
|
"The article is OK, but I take it with a grain of salt. You just can't believe everything you read." Not jumping. More like a hop. |
Do we know if Thomas Jefferson, living in this day and age would say the same thing? What would he say now? I don't know. I don't want to make my decisions based on the thoughts of a man who lived so long ago, and dealed with a much different country than the one we live in now. It seems irrelevant what he wanted back then, to me now. |
|
|
|
|
I would not take that as fact. |
|
|
I don't think this has turned out as they thought it might or as they wanted, and I don't think they would be happy if they saw what we are today. We are not today, anything in comparison to what we were 200 years ago. What they wanted back then, may have been wonderful for back then, but not today. What a man thought or wanted so long ago does seem irrelevant to me in the aspect of he is not here now to see how things are now and then say what he wants or how he feels so therefore it is informative, and food for thought, but basically irrelevant to what I have to deal with now. It was someone else's dream, from a long time ago, and it was a good dream, but look at how this has turned out. I don't know if it is my dream. |
|
|
|
He (Thomas Jefferson) was talking about STATE government (specifically Virginia) when he made those statements. Not good old Uncle Sam. I know something sounded amiss here; Jefferson was no fan of the federal government running anything at all that would resemble an educational facility. |
So, the American dream is not your dream? Spunky! Have her arrested immediately! |
Uh huh. And we're talking about STATE government (specifically Texas) on this thread. Keep knocking down them phantom arguments, spunkster! |
I always thought you got what you paid for. A public school system will only become a cookie cutter organization with no flexibility, and focusing on group results versus individual achievement. wait! We already have that! |
Yes. We get the society we pay for. So I take it you're against the Bush tax cut? "A public school system will only become a cookie cutter organization with no flexibility..." Yeah, right, that never happens in private institutions. Uh, huh. I wouldn't expect you to be in favor of public education, spunk. It obviously hasn't benefitted you much. |
Our daughter is in the public education system. My fears regarding this is what happens when it is taked over nationally and is totally free? Socialized education? What does that mean for everyone involved? The state took control of the Kansas City School District and they still fucking suck ass with little hope of improvement in the future, because of how it is run, not because of money, cuz it gets a large cut of the money in that area, and all the social programs that go with. It's a fucking joke and those kids are the ones that suffer. If that is any example of what it would be like for our kids and future generations of kids, then it sucks ass and I am against it. It may not be, it might be an isolated case, but I don't know, and I don't want to put my childs education at risk to find out. I wasn't talking about state run education. I was talking about the womans comments about the right to free education through the government, she didn't specify state, so I was going with federal. |
It means we give a shit, as a society, that everyone has a minimum education. "..she didn't specify state, so I was going with federal." Well, considering she's a state representative and she made her comment in a committee meeting of the state house of representatives, I'm guessing she was talking about state funding of education. Could be wrong, though. |
|
"Our daughter is in the public education system. My fears regarding this is what happens when it is taken over nationally and is totally free?" soooo, wait. Education IS free already, or it isn't...? I'm confused. How/when is a public school education not free? What levels of education are we talking about here? What kind of school? ------- Desperate during this brief pause in war debates, Anti begins fighting anything that types. Man, you gotta get that sand out of your vagina. |
|
"By Antigone on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 06:20 pm: "He (Thomas Jefferson) was talking about STATE government..." Uh huh. And we're talking about STATE government (specifically Texas) on this thread. " "By Antigone on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 06:35 pm: "I always thought you got what you paid for." Yes. We get the society we pay for. So I take it you're against the Bush tax cut? " Focus man, federal or state run education? |
No vagina, no sand. Burr up my ass, maybe. |
No confusion. Offhand mildly non sequitur quip. Sorry, I'll try to not introduce wit. I know it throws you. |
|
Pulling the "bring out an un-PC quote of the founding father in an attempt to make his views look dated" trick. Next, are you going to mention that he was a slave owner and adulterer? |
|
And he was right, the public wasnt ready for it. How many years later did women getr the right to vote? Now, it should have happened sooner (probably), but thats the way things work... Of course his views are dated, they are 200 years old. it doesn't mean they aren't valid or that they weren't. It just means that they are OLD. "Next, are you going to mention that he was a slave owner and adulterer?" why mention that? it has no bearing on the discussion. Really Antigone, you need to get that sand out of your vagina..... |
I never said that. You are twisting my words to suit a meaning that I did not state. You are yet again making inferences that are not correct. Socialized education doesn't say shit about the parents of the children in the schools. It doesn't say shit about the community. It says that the government makes the decisions, what it taught, when, what the teachers are allowed to say and what they aren't. It allows the government to have the power to place an agenda to the future generation, and it doesn't necessarily teach them how to think for themselves. I have seen this run rampantly in the government programs that are brought to the schools. The government run schools I have seen are the absolute worst schools I have seen, and with the highest amounts of illiterate graduates I have ever seen, with the lowest rates of college acceptances I have ever seen, and the most undereducated teachers I have ever seen. And this is (get this) 20 years after school accreditation was lost with nothing but a continuing downhill spiral. What I have seen of government run education does not help the kids. It focuses only on state tests which they continue to fail all these years later. These kids are graduating from high school and aren't capable of flipping burgers at McDonald's. But then again, I am speaking from the things I have seen with my own eyes, and that probably doesn't mean shit to you Tiggy, since you are busy arguing with anyone you can argue with. I am tired of this and tired of you. There is no law saying that I have to agree with anyone, founding father or anyone else, and if you don't like it, tough shit. Get over it. Wisper, although you don't pay a direct tuition for most public schools you do still pay quite a lot of money and only parts of it are "free" being paid for out of our tax money (so not essentially free). We have to buy every imaginable supply for the classes, including the teachers dry erase markers and refill paper for the copy machines, not to mention what the kids directly use. The schools are extremely strict on what brands of each things are acceptable as well. We have to buy certain books, and have a certain amount of certain types of books in the home at all times. An average school year will cost us in the neighborhood of $1,000 in books if I wasn't a major bargain hunter, not to mention the costs of all of the other supplies. Over the course of one school year (in spite of buying 39 cent used books as often as I can and shopping for as many supplies at the dollar store as possible) we still invest an average of $500 per year, not including uniforms or food or field trips or parties or holidays or transportation (which is also not free). It gets really expensive. Micki is due to start next fall, and in addition to all of the above, they expect us to pay $88 per week for her, because she is not yet 5 years old. So there is still a lot of money that you invest in these things, and it is not free. Don't get me wrong, I am not really upset about the costs, not at all. I don't have the patience to homeschool Hayley, or Micki for that matter. I don't like too many of the private schools here and the ones I like we could never afford. The schools here have been pretty damned good to Hayley and she has come a long way since we have been here. My immediate complaints are small and insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Besides, I love buying kids books. I think that kids can never have too many books. I am a used bookstore junkie when it comes to my kids books. They have fiction, non-fiction, old textbooks, dictionaries, thesauruses, and ten tons of books for each and every reading level through 8th grade so far, and yet Hayley is only in 3rd grade. We're book-a-holics here with tons of books in our bookshelves and trust me, each room in our place has books in every one. The only rooms that don't have bookcases are the kitchen and the bathrooms, otherwise we have at least one bookcase full of books in every room. And there are always books in every room. The hard part now is finding age appropriate books for advanced readers!!!! Most of the books Hayley is able to read now has too adult subject matter for her. |
When i was in grade 3 i read whatever i could get my hands on... that included Moms Readers Digest, Dads Sports Illustrated and anything else in the school or home.... IMO anything you got that she can read (as long as its not porn) should be fine... So you might need to answer some tough questions, but maybe you could point her to entry reading in that subject to delay the inevitable ??s, or she could learn the answers on her own, which is quite alright.... isn't it? |
She can learn the inevitable when she is emotionally mature enough to handle it, but right now, at 8 years old, she isn't. She is perfectly capable of reading Stephen King novels now, but they would be over her head or too scary for her. Romance novels, too slutty and most of them too easy for her to read, sci-fi novels are too technical for her to read, and most of my novels contain too much adult material. I mean, would you let your 8 year old read "The Mists of Avalon"? The material is too adult for an 8 year old. She has tons of Babysitters Club and Sweet Valley Twins/High books, and goes through them in a couple of hours and is easily bored with them. She is starting the 4th Harry Potter book now. We have bought her some of the classics. We have bought her books that are cartoon versions of the ones that are too much for her to read yet, so that she will understand them and be able to read them when the time is right. She likes Goosebumps, except they are too easy, and RL Stine books but sometimes they are too scary for her. All that is left at her reading level are classics and horror novels and some new line called "Circle of Three" or "Coven of Three" or something like that. Reading the same kinds of things over and over get old. There isn't an in between from YA books to novels, and that is what she needs right now. I am getting her more Nancy Drew books. She seems to like those. I don't quite think she is ready (emotionally) for VC Andrews yet. She is just at an in between where her reading level has advanced farther than her maturity level. |
I know that i read some of Mark Twain's around then... you know tom sawyer and the huckfin one... a lot of classics that were to indepth for me, but i did read them, and then re-read them a couple of years later. |
really. i mean she is so cute you wanna puke. i can get her to laugh and smile now. and when she's able to comprehend all this shit being typed here...say this time next year, im positive she'll shit her pants in protest. i can't make heads or tails out of the hixon family opinion anymore. yeah. we do get what we pay for (or what we don't pay for) with our education system and its pathetic. schools ARE primarily controlled with state and local oversight. as is evident by the state of things...education is poorly underfunded, by all levels, state, federal and local. its in the best interest of the feds as much as it is the local school boards to cough up the dough. unfortunately, and im starting to loose sight here, we over-legislate everything, schools included, to the point of ineffectivness. and maybe is should stop there before i end up in a cul-de-sac of anti-lawyer-ism.... oh and eva wanted me to tell you, you all smell like her poopy pants at 4am. |
This is exactly how I feel and why I am so fucking confused on this situation, therefore not knowing what to think beyond what I have seen myself. So basically, Patrick, I agree with you. I am just wondering what you aren't saying, but then, I am also afraid of that answer. |
unfortunately, and im starting to loose sight here, we over-legislate everything, schools included, to the point of ineffectivness. and maybe is should stop there before i end up in a cul-de-sac of anti-lawyer-ism..." HOLY SHIT HE GOT IT! |
the general philosophies and politicians you support are part of the problem too. the man in the whitehouse is a huge supporter of standardized testing. simply offering money to put your child somewhere else is not solving the problem either, as was a huge platform of his. |
|
Guess how much it costs the tax payer (sales tax, state and local income tax and federal tax) on average to send a child to a public school for one year? |
|
Since that's the argument the gun control folks use. Spunky, if all education had to be paid for per child by the individual family, what sort of education do you think you could afford for your children? Seriously. Because the way it's funded now, thorugh taxpayer money, your kids' schooling is not only being paid by you, but by people who don't even have kids. Fair? I would say yes, because it's in the best possible interest of everyone that American children get a good education. Privitizing public education is not the solution. You can't use existing private schools as an example of how it would work because those schools are funded by upper class people who can afford a quality private education. Vouchers is just another use of taxpayer money for education as well. |
the right to free education is not. |
Cost: $2,000 a year including text books, basketball uniform, etc The average cost of a public shool education: New Hampshire: $7,232.72 Fairfax County VA$9,388 |
I have no argument there. "Privitizing public education is not the solution. You can't use existing private schools as an example of how it would work because those schools are funded by upper class people who can afford a quality private education." That depends on priorities. How many nice newer cars have you seen in a trailer park or in front of a dump of a house? I have seen plenty. "Vouchers is just another use of taxpayer money for education as well." I can say that that in the cases I am aware of, that is incorrect. When I was working for the Juvinile Detention Center, we had to fill out forms and send them into the state so that the funds allocated for the individual in our custody would be deverted to the detention center. Likewise when I changed schools from the public school to private, we had to fill out forms that told the state we were no longer attending the public school for trauncy and tution purposes. These schools, at least, received funds on a per-student basis. That policy may vary from state to state, but that is the way it works in Missouri. The vouchers would take money from the public shool funds and divert it to the voucher program. This would not increase tax needs, and in the case of the school I attended, it would decrease the tax burden. |
the right to free education is not." well put, my friend. well put, indeed. those nutty framers. . . |
Let me clarify a point here. I am not against public education, per se. It should be available. What I am against is the contempt for the option of private education. There are huge problems with public education that has existed for at least 30 years that have to be addressed. Throwing more money at it does not make sense. |
Of course not. Why would you want to hire more teachers to reduce student to teacher ratios, or repair school facilties, or offer public schools the technological resources needed to prepare students for work or further education? Will investing more money in schools solve all the problems with American education? Absolutely not. But I don't think that cutting education spending or just spending the bare minimum is going to put us in a place where those problems can be addressed. Vouchers are just another way of avoiding responsibility for the problems of public education. And I am not talking about the people who choose to use them. Choices are limited and I wouldn't blame anyone for doign what they think is best. I went to high school on a public ed. school choice program myself. |
A big part of the problem with public education is that it has been seriously underfunded in this country for over 30 years. The argument of "throwing more money at it" is ridiculous at best. How can you even begin to initiate reform when you are cutting staff like crazy and closing programs? Give the schools the funds they need now so they can continue to operate, then look at reform. One reform desparately needed is smaller class size, which means hiring more teachers - oops, that's throwing money at the problem! THen thereis making sure our teachers are well trained - which of course will cost some money -oops, that's throwing money at the problem. Funny how when it comes to the Pentagon, the republicans are using CATAPULTS to distribute funds... |
Have you given her C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia yet? How about the Hobbit? And then there's all the Roald Dahl books, like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Twits, James and the Giant Peach and so on. |
I did not advocate REDUCING spending. But 7-10k per kid seems like plenty. |
|
|
|
Teachers are grossly underpaid and subsequently underqualified. Facilities and the lack there of are pathetic. Textbooks are sad. Yes. Throw more money at the school system. Throw all the money we can. If we could factor an efficacy of 70cents actually used for every dollar allocated to schools due to mismanagement i say give it up. Its better than doing nothing. Until someone comes up with a real solution to fix the mismanagement, which probably will never happen, cutting funds (as is the what is happening in practically every state in the union) is not a solution. The status quo is no solution either. Education is so important that If I know im working on a 50-60-70% efficiency , its still worth it |
|
Yes, I know that the New England area is much higher. Maybe the only things that need to be taught in primary school are reading, writing, mathematics, basic health, PE, basic science, and basic history. Get the basic building blocks in place before moving on. Yes, lower the teacher to student ratio. Create a standard set of text books that are used nationaly, with a lesson plan already created. Find a more concise way of reporting elementary progress beyond a check or a minus sign. Raise the standard for passing a subject from 60% to 65%. Eliminate social promotion. Don't spend school money or time on things like the D.A.R.E. program and anti-smoking weeks. |
The only difference was in how it was run. And that none of the kids were pregnant. My biggest issue is how much reform the schools need. The money being thrown at them now are going to ridiculous morality classes that start in kindergarten and not to new technology or better books and all of building reforms have been to add preschools so they can charge you mega bucks to send your kids to the same place. I am not for the standardized testing as a means of proving educational achievement, because I have seen how they run those tests. I have issues with how they run the tests. There is a huge controversy right now over the TAKS tests and the fact that if you child doesn't pass certain portions of these test they will be held back a grade. They feel that if the child can't handle the basic skills needed to function at this grade level then they shouldn't go to the next grade level. Makes sense. Helps reduce social graduates. Tough, though. Even a 3rd grade teacher is not allowed to remind the class at any point during the testing period (any time that day, not even test time) that they have to fill in the bubbles for the right answers. Since standardized tests are still relatively new to these kids, I find that rule ridiculous. I am not saying that the teacher should be able to go around and look at the students work and remind them to fill in the specific bubbles they missed, but that they should be able to remind the kids (as a whole) at the beginning of the tests, or something of that nature. If a teacher is caught reminding the students then he/she loses his/her teaching credentials and I think that is utter bullshit. Also, the entire 2 months prior to each tests is spent on NOTHING but preparation for that specific test. They offered tutoring for these kids prior to the tests, great, but the tutoring was not to help them develop the necessary skills to succeed in this subject in life, but just to get them to pass the test. Again, bullshit. Spending so much time focusing on these tests makes it so that a teacher can't teach all of the things that these kids should be learning. There is also a ridiculous loophole that can get kids out of these tests (they still have to take them, but aren't required to pass them to pass the grade) which can really hurt the kids in the long run. If you declare your child mentally disabled (no proof required, but the parents word) then the child doesn't have to pass, and the majority of parents know this, so therefore there is an easy way to get your undereducated kid to be a social graduate anyways, thus un-doing what these tests were supposed to be trying to accomplish. The whole standardized testing thing is fucked up. Tests only give the child ideas of limits upon their potential. An example. Hayley really wants to get into the gifted and talented program at school. She is definately smart enough and would really enjoy it. In order to qualify for testing to get into the program your reading score on your standardized test must be the "commendable" level or better (95% or better). On her tests last year (different curriculum) she got a 66% in reading, and this year missed the commendable mark by 1 fucking question and ended up with a 92%. I think 66% to 92% in one year is an amazing accomplishment and they should look at how much progress she has made in a rather short period of time and understand that it won't take much at all for her to reach that stupid 95% mark and should be tested anyways, because she is showing she is capable of reaching it. She didn't have any tutoring or anything in this area, either. So their standardized test requirements are holding her back probably because she forgot to fill in one bubble on the fucking test, she only missed a total of 3 questions, and I think that is pretty damned commendable in itself. Sem, as far as Hayley's books, she does have Trace's old Narnia books. I think the Hobbit would be over her head, but I have those books as well and she can try them if she wants. I don't have any Dahl books, didn't know the name of the author, now I do. Those might be easier for her to get into. She knows some of the stories, so it might work. That's how we got her started on the Harry Potter books. She's kinda afraid of book 4 cuz of it's size, but she will get there. It's hard to find YA books (other than sweet valley sluts and shit like that) that are more than 100-120 pages long. I mean, she was reading those in 1st grade and now we are approaching 4th grade. I guess steering her toward sci-fi/fantasy novels are going to be the best bet until she is mature enough for other types of novels. She likes mysteries a lot too, so I am going to get as many of those as possible now. Geez, I was buying her a couple of Nancy Drew's and a couple of RL Stine's and a lot of Babysitter's club for Christmas and now she has come so far already. They grow so quickly that things are hard to keep up with sometimes. Thank God the Goodwill store sells paperbacks for 39 cents and hardbacks for 99 cents. She is really into earth sciences so I have been getting old textbooks and things like that. Any recommendations for books she can use to learn about those things? Other than encyclopedias? All of the stuff Scholastic has put out is for 3-8 year old kids and below her reading level and boring. So I just pick up old high school text books when I can. My mom used to do that for me and let me write in them if I wanted and stuff like that and I loved it. I am a total geek, I swear!!!! |
Wow. See? confused. Nationalized curriculum. Um. Id rather not have a nationalized curriculum. Thats an easy vehicle for nationalism. Next thing you know we have federally mandated brown uniforms. lets leave the curriculum to the locals eh? |
the right to free education is not." Spunky just made an argument for a free public education system. It's a bare argument, sure... :) |
And it shows! Remember, you get what you pay for. |
Here here! |
Hayley is spending a lot of time learning about fiesta, and mexican culture. hardly any time about American History. |
|
We watch historical things on television, we should probably discuss these things more with her. Besides, she still has a long way to go in school, and we will probably be teaching her a lot of history in the long run. After all, didn't they teach her in 1st grade (and myself all through school) that Dr. Martin Luther King was the one who freed the slaves in the south? |
|
|
You call using the Department of Homeland Security to hunt for Democrats "pathetic"? You call staking out the Democrat mayor of a major American city "pathetic"? I think other adjectives are in order. "Treasonous" might fit. |
I also think that stalking in general is pathetic, dangerous, but still pathetic. Being that the stalker is the pathetic one. If you want to be all dramatic and act like I am horrible for underreacting, fine, wtf ever. But this gets old, really old, and getting all worked up on this board isn't going to change a goddamned thing, so what's the fucking point? |
|
|
|