In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On August 12 2015 22:46 ticklishmusic wrote: The polls coming out of Ohio say that a lot of people like him, and he won re-election by a lot though.
That has more to do with the extreme impotence of the Ohio Democratic Party than Kasich's merits as a leader. Ohio has a lot of political problems, to put it plainly.
I'm not at all familiar with what Kasich has done for education in Ohio, but I'll certainly take your word for it being terrible. But do you actually have any republican candidate you are more positive towards? Because to me, when I watched their first debate, from the other candidates I had a hard time finding even individual statements that weren't either meaningless or absurd. But with him, nothing really rubbed me the wrong way, and at least twice he made me think that hey, this was a really good answer.
Well, just for a little taste on what Kasich has done...
With two-term Ohio Gov. John Kasich joining the crowd of candidates for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, it’s a good time to look at the public education mess that has developed in his state under his leadership.
Kasich has pushed key tenets of corporate school reform:
*expanding charter schools — even though the state’s charter sector is the most troubled in the country
*increasing the number of school vouchers that use public money to pay for tuition at private schools, the vast majority of them religious — even though state officials say that fewer than one-third of those available were used by families this past school year
*performance pay for teachers — even though such schemes have been shown over many years not to be useful in education
*evaluating educators by student standardized test scores in math and reading — even though assessment experts have warned that using test scores in this way is not reliable or valid.
Meanwhile, the Ohio Education Department in Kasich’s administration is in turmoil. David Hansen, his administration’s chief for school choice and charter schools resigned over this past weekend after admitting that he had unilaterally withheld failing scores of charter schools in state evaluations of the schools’ sponsor organizations so they wouldn’t look so bad. (Hansen’s wife, incidentally, is Kasich’s chief of staff, who is taking a leave from that post to work on his campaign.) There are growing calls now for the resignation of the Kasich-backed state superintendent of education, Richard Ross.
As for which Republican candidate I like better, I'll just go ahead and stump for Trump. Realistically, I guess George Patacki isn't so bad though
haha, that list is almost like a what's what over educational policies I've specifically argued against in this very thread.
I'm confused why you think these charges are so bad to try. We know that more money doesn't solve the problems because per pupil spending is only loosely correlated with achievement and totally disappears if you adjust for household income of the students ( why many big cities are big outliers with huge spending and bad results).
What we do know is there is a small set of teachers that actually influence kids long term, so why not experiment to try and retain them? More importantly we know there is a large subset 10% or so, that negatively affect long term outcomes, and they need to be fired. But because unions, you need objective proof to be rid of them, so you have to do standardized testing.
Lastly, on private and charters, I think it's a temporary fix because some schools are quite bad, and the option to escape is more plausible than the option of successful reform, short term. There may also be a psychology at play where a parent who makes an active choice actually becomes more invested because of the choice.
The points mentioned in the quote perhaps, I figured the same but if you click the link there is more info that it has turned out pretty bad in reality.
a birther and a truther as the presidential duo.. and with trump that's not even the worst I can say about him.
Truther? Seriously? Is it even arguable at this point that there's more to the 9/11 story than just hijacked planes causing the two towers to collapse into dust? A steel building that was built to withstand planes crashing into it to collapse into dust like that?
Youtube "building 7 collapse". Another steel building collapsing the same way without a plane hitting it. Anyone with a brain knows a fire does not cause a steel building to collapse into dust. It's obvious it was a demolition job.
The only thing people like you can do is insult people who don't agree with you, you know nothing.
You're from Norway though so who cares what you think of American politics
The Connecticut Supreme Court on Thursday ruled the state's death penalty is unconstitutional. The deeply divided court's 4-3 ruling will affect the 11 inmates currently on the state's death row.
Lawmakers repealed the state's death penalty in 2012, but stipulated it only applied to future crimes. Plaintiffs in Thursday's case had argued the 2012 ban should also extend to prisoners already on death row.
As a result of the ruling, the inmates’ sentences will be converted to life without parole.
"Upon careful consideration of the defendant's claims in light of the governing constitutional principles and Connecticut's unique historical and legal landscape, we are persuaded that, following its prospective abolition, this state's death penalty no longer comports with contemporary standards of decency and no longer serves any legitimate penological purpose," Justice Richard Palmer wrote for the majority.
a birther and a truther as the presidential duo.. and with trump that's not even the worst I can say about him.
Truther? Seriously? Is it even arguable at this point that there's more to the 9/11 story than just hijacked planes causing the two towers to collapse into dust? A steel building that was built to withstand planes crashing into it to collapse into dust like that? You're a complete fool.
Youtube "building 7 collapse". Another steel building collapsing the same way without a plane hitting it. Anyone with a brain knows a fire does not cause a steel building to collapse into dust. It's obvious it was a demolition job.
You're from Norway though so who cares what you think of American politics
Yes, of course. It was the chinese who blew up the secret CIA werewolf hybrid program research that was going on in level 33.5. Everyone knows that.
a birther and a truther as the presidential duo.. and with trump that's not even the worst I can say about him.
Truther? Seriously? Is it even arguable at this point that there's more to the 9/11 story than just hijacked planes causing the two towers to collapse into dust? A steel building that was built to withstand planes crashing into it to collapse into dust like that? You're a complete fool.
Youtube "building 7 collapse". Another steel building collapsing the same way without a plane hitting it. Anyone with a brain knows a fire does not cause a steel building to collapse into dust. It's obvious it was a demolition job.
You're from Norway though so who cares what you think of American politics
Yes, of course. It was the chinese who blew up the secret CIA werewolf hybrid program research that was going on in level 33.5. Everyone knows that.
Also MURICA!!! Only Americans matter!!!!
Exactly my point, typical dumbass response. Completely devoid of common sense or anything meaningful to say rofl.
a birther and a truther as the presidential duo.. and with trump that's not even the worst I can say about him.
Truther? Seriously? Is it even arguable at this point that there's more to the 9/11 story than just hijacked planes causing the two towers to collapse into dust? A steel building that was built to withstand planes crashing into it to collapse into dust like that? You're a complete fool.
Youtube "building 7 collapse". Another steel building collapsing the same way without a plane hitting it. Anyone with a brain knows a fire does not cause a steel building to collapse into dust. It's obvious it was a demolition job.
You're from Norway though so who cares what you think of American politics
Yes, of course. It was the chinese who blew up the secret CIA werewolf hybrid program research that was going on in level 33.5. Everyone knows that.
Also MURICA!!! Only Americans matter!!!!
Exactly my point, typical dumbass response. Completely devoid of common sense or anything meaningful to say rofl.
I'm from the US and you're just wrong. Sorry. Jet fuel does melt steel beams.
a birther and a truther as the presidential duo.. and with trump that's not even the worst I can say about him.
Truther? Seriously? Is it even arguable at this point that there's more to the 9/11 story than just hijacked planes causing the two towers to collapse into dust? A steel building that was built to withstand planes crashing into it to collapse into dust like that? You're a complete fool.
Youtube "building 7 collapse". Another steel building collapsing the same way without a plane hitting it. Anyone with a brain knows a fire does not cause a steel building to collapse into dust. It's obvious it was a demolition job.
You're from Norway though so who cares what you think of American politics
Yes, of course. It was the chinese who blew up the secret CIA werewolf hybrid program research that was going on in level 33.5. Everyone knows that.
Also MURICA!!! Only Americans matter!!!!
Exactly my point, typical dumbass response. Completely devoid of common sense or anything meaningful to say rofl.
I'm from the US and you're just wrong. Sorry. Jet fuel does melt steel beams.
BAAHAHAHAHAHA... No it does not. Research it yourself. You could be told the sky is pink and you'd believe it.
"No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC." FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F)"
Explain how that amount of jet fuel from a single air plane caused the towers to collapse into dust then, exactly the same way other controlled demolition jobs do.
a birther and a truther as the presidential duo.. and with trump that's not even the worst I can say about him.
Truther? Seriously? Is it even arguable at this point that there's more to the 9/11 story than just hijacked planes causing the two towers to collapse into dust? A steel building that was built to withstand planes crashing into it to collapse into dust like that? You're a complete fool.
Youtube "building 7 collapse". Another steel building collapsing the same way without a plane hitting it. Anyone with a brain knows a fire does not cause a steel building to collapse into dust. It's obvious it was a demolition job.
You're from Norway though so who cares what you think of American politics
Yes, of course. It was the chinese who blew up the secret CIA werewolf hybrid program research that was going on in level 33.5. Everyone knows that.
Also MURICA!!! Only Americans matter!!!!
Exactly my point, typical dumbass response. Completely devoid of common sense or anything meaningful to say rofl.
I'm from the US and you're just wrong. Sorry. Jet fuel does melt steel beams.
BAAHAHAHAHAHA... No it does not. Research it yourself. You could be told the sky is pink and you'd believe it.
Sure buddy, I'll get right now that. Until then, can you tell me everything you know about chem trails?
a birther and a truther as the presidential duo.. and with trump that's not even the worst I can say about him.
Truther? Seriously? Is it even arguable at this point that there's more to the 9/11 story than just hijacked planes causing the two towers to collapse into dust? A steel building that was built to withstand planes crashing into it to collapse into dust like that? You're a complete fool.
Youtube "building 7 collapse". Another steel building collapsing the same way without a plane hitting it. Anyone with a brain knows a fire does not cause a steel building to collapse into dust. It's obvious it was a demolition job.
You're from Norway though so who cares what you think of American politics
Yes, of course. It was the chinese who blew up the secret CIA werewolf hybrid program research that was going on in level 33.5. Everyone knows that.
Also MURICA!!! Only Americans matter!!!!
Exactly my point, typical dumbass response. Completely devoid of common sense or anything meaningful to say rofl.
People actually believe that 19 Islamic radicals armed with box cutters defeated Americas multi-billion dollar air defense system all while conspiring with a bearded guy in a cave in Afghanistan. Yea thats sounds super legit.
Oh, so he WAS the guy with the "Justice Germans" Youtube channels with such wonderful videos as "The real holocaust victims are those who died in british firebombings" as a source. I thought i remembered that post, but i couldn't find it. In that case i would just have ignored him.
Edit: Nope sorry, that was someone else, some Eskivee. Who has since been banned.
On August 12 2015 22:46 ticklishmusic wrote: The polls coming out of Ohio say that a lot of people like him, and he won re-election by a lot though.
That has more to do with the extreme impotence of the Ohio Democratic Party than Kasich's merits as a leader. Ohio has a lot of political problems, to put it plainly.
I'm not at all familiar with what Kasich has done for education in Ohio, but I'll certainly take your word for it being terrible. But do you actually have any republican candidate you are more positive towards? Because to me, when I watched their first debate, from the other candidates I had a hard time finding even individual statements that weren't either meaningless or absurd. But with him, nothing really rubbed me the wrong way, and at least twice he made me think that hey, this was a really good answer.
Well, just for a little taste on what Kasich has done...
With two-term Ohio Gov. John Kasich joining the crowd of candidates for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, it’s a good time to look at the public education mess that has developed in his state under his leadership.
Kasich has pushed key tenets of corporate school reform:
*expanding charter schools — even though the state’s charter sector is the most troubled in the country
*increasing the number of school vouchers that use public money to pay for tuition at private schools, the vast majority of them religious — even though state officials say that fewer than one-third of those available were used by families this past school year
*performance pay for teachers — even though such schemes have been shown over many years not to be useful in education
*evaluating educators by student standardized test scores in math and reading — even though assessment experts have warned that using test scores in this way is not reliable or valid.
Meanwhile, the Ohio Education Department in Kasich’s administration is in turmoil. David Hansen, his administration’s chief for school choice and charter schools resigned over this past weekend after admitting that he had unilaterally withheld failing scores of charter schools in state evaluations of the schools’ sponsor organizations so they wouldn’t look so bad. (Hansen’s wife, incidentally, is Kasich’s chief of staff, who is taking a leave from that post to work on his campaign.) There are growing calls now for the resignation of the Kasich-backed state superintendent of education, Richard Ross.
As for which Republican candidate I like better, I'll just go ahead and stump for Trump. Realistically, I guess George Patacki isn't so bad though
haha, that list is almost like a what's what over educational policies I've specifically argued against in this very thread.
I'm confused why you think these charges are so bad to try. We know that more money doesn't solve the problems because per pupil spending is only loosely correlated with achievement and totally disappears if you adjust for household income of the students ( why many big cities are big outliers with huge spending and bad results).
What we do know is there is a small set of teachers that actually influence kids long term, so why not experiment to try and retain them? More importantly we know there is a large subset 10% or so, that negatively affect long term outcomes, and they need to be fired. But because unions, you need objective proof to be rid of them, so you have to do standardized testing.
Lastly, on private and charters, I think it's a temporary fix because some schools are quite bad, and the option to escape is more plausible than the option of successful reform, short term. There may also be a psychology at play where a parent who makes an active choice actually becomes more invested because of the choice.
The points mentioned in the quote perhaps, I figured the same but if you click the link there is more info that it has turned out pretty bad in reality.
I read the editorial. Its kind of nonsensical. The good thing about failing charter schools is you can just shut them down, there is nothing inherently wrong with depriving public schools moneu...because we know funding is already excessive. Even if the reforms do not improve things (there is notably no evidence they got worse) they are depriving the public schools of unnecessary funds, so the reforms in the future have a better chance of succeeding.
EPT
