It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
It does reside with the states and districts, but they are held somewhat hostage by the funding they get from the federal government.
The standardized tests that are given require teachers teach to the test throughout the year rather than teaching a more fully developed curriculum. Now, this could be tweaked in a way to make it a more ideal setup, but the way that it's currently utilized in some places, leaves something to be desired.
When I was taking the standardized tests in high school, they were horrendously easy. We're talking about the tests being an insult to one's intelligence. In essence, the entire year was wasted teaching to a test that was incredibly easy and would have really only required a couple of weeks of review to get caught up on in order to pass the test. I do believe that they've increased the difficulty of the tests since then, but I doubt that they've done so to a level that would make that one single test an adequate representation of what a student has learned over the course of a year.
There are ways to make this a better system if the government wanted to keep it on a federal level. But the problem is that the Constitution does not even prescribe a function for the federal government to get involved in education, and therefore it should be left up to the states. Based on the current law, it should be the states, and the states alone, determining how to run things instead of the bizarre hybrid of the states technically being in charge of determining tests and curriculum, but having to shape all of that in some way solely for the receipt of some form of federal funding.
I'm not necessarily against federal oversight or involvement in education. I just think it has to be one or the other, either the states are in charge of it from top to bottom, or the federal government is in charge of it completely, with the states and local only being involved in terms of running the day-to-day operations, something the federal government would obviously not be able to do. For a federal takeover, the Constitution would have to be amended. That's fine with me, if that's what everyone decides needs to be done, but I don't think the current system where the federal government lords over the state and local districts using funding to chase an imaginary set of standards that all 50 states will never agree to on their own is the best way to go.
just a thought..
You can't let the states have 100% autonomy because the results would be disastrous.
Constitutionally, they do have 100% autonomy. The federal government has found loopholes to get around that, but the Constitution does not grant the federal government authority over education, and any power not granted to the federal government is left to the states.
If the government desires to take over education, then that would require an amendment to the Constitution. As one of the so-called evil Republicans, I simply support following the Constitution. If the federal government proves that they can actually perform a service at the national level in a satisfactory way, and they feel they can take on education in an effective way, then fine.
Some states do not do a good job at education, but as @CommanderRoss said, the complete nationalization of the process could also lead to lower standards across the board, which wouldn't be a good thing either. It's about finding a balance without violating the law as written in the Constitution.
The issue isn't easy to solve. And @dalton is correct: states manage education, and that is the end of the discussion. But we also live in a time where standardized tests are everything. This is NOT a Republican or Democrat edict. Both sides push this, and they have done so in response to the public.
Standardized tests do two things: 1. Create quantified data; 2. Create that data quickly and relatively inexpensively.
As long as our politicians are hyper-focused on competing with other countries, in terms of math and engineering, we're in a tough spot, because we can't compete with those countries under the system we currently have. First of all, it's an apples/oranges comparison. The U.S. is one of the few countries that offers a fully subsidized public education through 12th grade.
But there are some simple, common sense remedies that can help:
1. Year-round school. This has to happen in the U.S. Study after study shows that an eight to ten week layoff is harmful.
2. Compulsory education starts in pre-K. Despite the short-term burden this places on states, the long-term benefits would be huge: millions of parents would be saving daycare $ and putting that into other (more beneficial) things. As a result, the pre-K year becomes the socialization year, allowing for more students to enter kindergarten prepared. As it is now, more and more kindergarten teachers are reporting that youngsters are coming to them unprepared.
Religious extremists fled Europe, colonized the US, and a few centuries later, this is the result.
That is hilarious!!! :))
On the Republican side, we're now down to three candidates, as Marco Rubio has dropped out after being embarrassed in Florida. Looks like our last gasp for sanity on the right rests with John Kasich, who after tonight will only have one win and a delegate gap of several hundred to make up.
big day for Trump.
Everyone knows that Kasich survived in Ohio due to strategic voting by Marco's people and massive support by the party apparatus. Yet. Trump didn't do all that badly, coming in 11% and 226K votes short. He will be very difficult to stop or deny from now on, unless the Republicans decide to forfeit this election.
That is the decision they have before them. Interesting times for them, and they should think carefully, given the implications, including Supreme Court nominees etc.
Fascinating.
The footage of him condoning violence against protester is utterly disgusting and now this they'll be riots if he doesn't get the nominee, the man should be arrested.
I know people who have opposing poltical views can be friends but this has gone to far this man is promoting hatred and violence and most of what he's supposedly good at is lies anyway, the man is not a good business man it's all hype purported by the man himself and it appears many Americans have bought into this.
Anyone that sees this man as a good idea I'm sorry I have to question your decency as a human being this is comparable to someone supporting the British National Party over in the UK and I assure you I have no problem claiming those people are lacking basic humanity, a vote for Drumpf would make me think the same thing.
Whether you think some of his policies are sound for the economy or not his character is seriously flawed and surely the people of America should see that shouldn't they?
I had to ask because to us back in the UK we can't believe a reality TV star billionaire with highly questionable ethics is in this position.
Magical thinking. It's not just for children anymore.
:))
What he said. Here in the USA there are many of us that feel the same. I used to wonder how a civilized nation like Germany in the 1930s could allow a lunatic like Hitler to grab the reins of power. Now I know. I implore all well intended Republicans to vote against this wannabe fuhrer. No more evading the point, no more "Oh fill-in-the-blank is just as bad." Stand for something or you'll fall for anything.