What about this Ron Paul fellow??????

Heck, I think they were doing that during the Eisenhower administration. Back then, they called it "social promotion" because they didn't want the kids to get embarrassed. Or rather, the parents, the kids probably didn't care.

 

I am tired.....we have strayed very far from the original intent of this thread.

 

Thank you for weighing in. For obvious reasons to you I can not comment from personal experience any earlier than Carter(really more like Reagan).

 

:lol: After I posted, I thought I should have said Truman, but I really was too young to remember whether or not they were giving social promotions back then. :lol:

 

No, because that was too young. I do remember them passing people under "social promotion" under Reagan. When social promotion started I do not know.

Again I remember teachers having to rush through things due to having to teach the curriculum long before this administration. The problem you have is how do you quantify results? Some teachers and administration may be unscrupulous as some people lack morals and want to continue their lavish pay.
I do not think that packing kids in a school like sardines has any benefits. You obviously benefited from the military schools as they did not have the discipline problems. My brother have much more knowledge, but you did not misbehave in a way to get your parent called.

 

The one time my Dad was called was when I splashed in a rain puddle on the way to Kindergarten. Never made that mistake again, at least not until after he retired. I was completely bored in school and there was very little learning. The schools have become to big and hence some children do not learn fast enough or teaching is too slow.

 

It would be wonderful to have more individualized attention for the children, teaching at each child's pace or grouping children with similar abilities. But wouldn't that require more teachers, more aides, and hence more spending on education? Personally, I don't mind paying taxes for public education, I think it's an investment in our future, but I know not everyone agrees, that's why I mention it.

 

Grace...nice link but it doesn't backup the statement you made earlier which was:


Did this Administration not tell our educators that they must teach abstinence only? Yes, they did, and if anyone is caught discussing or teaching something other than good ole' Bush's values then they can be fired.
Grace


Yes, some federal funding can be cutoff, but when did the Bush Administration threaten to fire teachers for teaching something other than abstinence only?

 

There are better ways to determine the cost to benefit ratio, but I was commenting on your statement on the need. If the highway is to capacity or above there is a need for more.

Yes, you might find a couple of scientists that would disagree, but the consensus is the determining factor not an individual scientist's opinion.

No, you limit the liberty or freedom of the state government but that is the extent of the limit.

 

On the subject of "returning" to the constitution as it was written or intended, which is sometimes common in similar discussions. What time frame do we use? The Constitution was ratified by 1789 and the Bill of rights was not added for another two years. The Ammendments continued through to the last century as was in the origninal design of the document. We cannot "return" to what was intended without ignoring the intent for the document to grow with the times.

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

On September 1786, commissioners from five states met in the Annapolis Convention to discuss adjustments to the Articles of Confederation that would improve commerce. They invited state representatives to convene in Philadelphia to discuss improvements to the federal government. After debate, the Confederation Congress endorsed the plan to revise the Articles of Confederation on February 21, 1787. Twelve states, Rhode Island being the only exception, accepted this invitation and sent delegates to convene in May 1787. The resolution calling the Convention specified its purpose was to propose amendments to the Articles, but the Convention decided to propose a rewritten Constitution. The Philadelphia Convention voted to keep deliberations secret and decided to draft a new fundamental government design which eventually stipulated that only 9 of the 13 states would have to ratify for the new government to go into effect (for the participating states).

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

Contrary to the process for "alteration" spelled out in Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation, Congress submitted the proposal to the states and set the terms for representation.

On September 17, 1787, the Constitution was completed in Philadelphia at the Federal Convention, followed by a speech given by Benjamin Franklin who urged unanimity, although they decided they only needed nine states to ratify the constitution for it to go into effect. The Convention submitted the Constitution to the Congress of the Confederation, where it received approval according to Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation, but the resolution of the Congress submitting the Constitution to the states for ratification and agreeing with its provision for implementation upon ratification by nine states is contrary to Article 13, though eventually all thirteen states did ratify the Constitution, albeit after it took effect.

After fierce fights over ratification in many of the states, New Hampshire became that ninth state on June 21, 1788. Once the Congress of the Confederation received word of New Hampshire's ratification, it set a timetable for the start of operations under the Constitution, and, on March 4, 1789, the government under the Constitution began operations.

 

No, smaller localized schools would be more adapt at individualized attention for students. Think back to the one room schools.

 

maybe encourage more mass transit, less sprawl or more agrarian commerce

Just because you or I believe in Evolution or 99% of the scientists does not mean that should be the only view point. If I had to learn about the Mayans and their geocentric beliefs should I not be allowed to learn about that wacky creationism?

Wrong, the Hawaiian islands have a much different educational need than anywhere else. The federal government does not distinguish. That violates the freedom and liberty of Hawaiian children and their culture. We can break it down further. The needs of children in Lumberton, Manteo, Murphy, and Raleigh are all different and should be mandated at the local or state level not by by an enormous bureaucracy in Washington.

 

Those smaller schools also did not have the ability to give a wide range of education, I know I went to a small school and the preparation was geared to the majority who were not going to college so we had no advanced math or science classes for those of us who needed it. If I had not gotten an advanced admission to college for the summer semesters of my Junior and Senior years of high school I would have been at an even greater disadvantage going to college than I was.

 

I thought that was for the market to decide not the government ...

It is unless there is another scientifically supportable point of view. There is not so there is not another point to be taught.

I suppose that would have been a history class? The same could be taught in a history class on recent history I suppose., but not in a science class.

They do not need as much math or science or more? The requirements are based on the amount of overage for each subject are they not? Maybe you should give a less generalized example.

In what way?

So you are saying the state and local Boards of Education have no say in the education process? I am not following your generalizations.

 

In the spirit of returning this thread to the man that is giving Americans hope. Here are some good points:

In the Name of Patriotism (Who are the Patriots?)
A Republic, Not a Democracy - No mention of democracy in Constitution
Let Liberty Ring Loudly - about Defending the entire Constitution

There are many things this great man is trying to do to save our Republic. I encourage everyone to get involved so that in the end they can not say we did nothing.

 

Yeah but now they have this new fangled technology called distance education. It works as I am familiar with a school right here in NC that has used it to great benefit.

 

Unless you are a poor county and cannot deal with the operational costs as it is. With the federal funds for education there is the chance for improvement of the system in those areas.

 

Give us free trade, equal access to foreign markets, and stop subsiding foreign products and the market will decide that

again opinion. scientists once thought the earth was flat.

wrong, it formed the basis for studying astronomy.

Yes the federal government dictates what every student in the US needs without regard for cultural heritage or need. Not everything is about math and science.
Guess what I am never going to agree that the current system of Education works. I will defer to a good spokesman: Ron Paul's views on education

 

wrong again my friend. One of the poorest counties in this state. They are making it happen at Ocracoke Island School

 

Free trade will reduce sprawl? I think you have taken a tangent or two here ...

Not as much as it was a tenet of the church and they dictated that view until it was no longer possible to do so with all of the scientific proof to the contrary ...kind of like creationism now.

The history of astronomy, I should have guessed since the observations are the same either way.

I do not see you agreeing with any modern government myself, but that is just my opinion.