|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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. |
People are ok with it because she isn't going to make a fool out of the US, unlike Donald.
|
people are too exasperated to have that much spare complaint energy.
most people aren't ok with it; they just aren't complaining that vociferously about it. (though if she screws up when doing so they'll talk about it loudly)
that said, shoudla sent in the sec of state or something.
I wonder how well it woudl work if the Dems focused on cases like this to complain about.
|
Better Ivanka than Trump. I'll take what I can get.
|
I can't wrap my head around this at all. Complete disrespect, imo, to other world leaders attending these meetings. No excuse for his absence.
|
On July 09 2017 01:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I can't wrap my head around this at all. Complete disrespect, imo, to other world leaders attending these meetings. No excuse for his absence.
I'm 99% sure the other world leaders are super happy that Ivanka is there and not Donald. Because the latter would not be paying attention and likely to make a fool of himself.
Remember, the cancelled the previous meeting and turned it into a dinner because of Trump not being able to keep up.
|
Yeah I'd probably take Ivanka over Trump for that lol. But I'd take a bunch of other people over Ivanka.
|
I did some 'research' on the interwebs since I was so flabbergasted by the situation, the pro ivanka arguments are:
'other countries have officials sit in for them too sometimes'
'it's sexist to say Ivanka is not qualified'
'The president asked her to, that's all the mandate she needs'
'you care about Ivanka but not the leftists burning Hamburg'
'well she's gonna be the next president anyway, suck it'
Unfortunately I'm still not quite convinced
|
Are all world leaders present at this meeting? If not, what's the position of the person sitting in for them? Is it a family member with no political experience or "power to move the stick"?
|
United States43991 Posts
On July 09 2017 01:45 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Are all world leaders present at this meeting? If not, what's the position of the person sitting in for them? Is it a family member with no political experience or "power to move the stick"?
Only the leaders of the G20 countries attend the G20 summit. Although sometimes they're represented by their foreign secretaries or similar.
|
On July 09 2017 00:47 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Some people can't afford to move to a better district neighborhood for their children to get a better education. They can't afford charter schools either. They want the best and they try to do the best they can but it's not good enough. You hear 'hood success stories. People getting away from the ghetto and becoming a massive success in life. It's just sad it's so rare or underreported/represented.
Isn't this the exact scenario that Devos's school choice proposals would address?
|
Devos' school choice proposals brought about the exact scenario ZerO described.
|
Look at the other side of that as well, if you will. If all the parents could choose where to go, schools would become overcrowded and education would suffer. Teaching more than 20 students at a time is most teacher's limit. You'll have classes upwards of 40-60. And one teacher unless they hire aides.
Then, look at the schools where students are "forced" to stay. They would get scraps and wouldn't be able to compete with the better funded schools. They also start to lack the proper education.
Unless we get more teachers and more schools that receive the funding they need to operate and compete with each other on an academic level, the cycle stays the same. I don't know the solution.
|
One of the hot-button solutions currently making its way through municipal finance circles deals in untying local education funding a la millage proposals from property taxes and instead centralizing the collection and distribution of funds at the state level. I think that's the way forward in all honesty.
|
On July 09 2017 02:15 farvacola wrote:
One of the hot-button solutions currently making its way through municipal finance circles deals in untying local education funding a la millage proposals from property taxes and instead centralizing the collection and distribution of funds at the state level. I think that's the way forward in all honesty.
The state decides who gets the money. Each district has a say. Each school lobbies for more funds. Special interests win out and the already sufficient schools get more. Then what?
|
Nah, that's way too much discretion in order for a state-wide allocation mechanism to function. The statute outlining the funding system would need to include a typical process through which funds are allocated on a reliable basis with an eye towards actuarial soundness and financial stability. One of the key, unspoken issues lying at the base of the problem of school funding deals in the extremely antiquated nature of most local oversight mechanisms with regards to financial stability. This rings true not only for school districts, but also for municipalities and county governments. Very few of these bodies have the ability to attract/afford the kind of financial expertise needed to administrate within budget while maneuvering bond markets/millage proposal risks. At the end of the day, 99% of these bodies do not have the financial stability needed to weather perpetual "hope this millage passes" crises.
|
Ideally schooling would be standardized such that you would get the same opportunities for education open to you regardless of where you go (with tracking to account for the reality that some students are better than others). The disparity in education quality that exists in the US between districts is appalling - and it's not for lack of qualified instructors.
|
school choice doesn't really do a whole lot because parents who can and/or more involved will just take their kids to the good schools and those kids who need help the most will be stuck at schools that now have even less funding and less test scored. the good schools aren't going to have busses that go that far away so it's not like just anyone can decide to go to a school 45 minutes away or something. Also there's the whole issue of using it to get your kids into religious schools which doesn't really affect the quality of education as much as the content.
plus now you have wealthy schools seceding from poorer (usually more african-american) school districts.
|
The US' localist attitude toward education and tradition of tying school funding to property taxes has lead to a differentiation among school districts that can be startlingly wide across distances as small as city blocks. Yes, the monolith of government is scary and "local control" sounds nice, but the fact that the willingness of one's neighbors to approve tax increases plays an oftentimes outcome determinative role in the quality of available education undermines actual progress in education. Further, many localities are simply not equipped to deal with the contemporary implications of maintaining healthy large-entity financials and are doing everyone a disservice by pretending otherwise. The Detroit bankruptcy decision by Judge Rhodes is a fascinating look into just how much damage financial incompetency mixed with political stultification can do. (Here's a link to the oral opinion.
|
Canada11520 Posts
I complain along with everyone else for more resources. But one thing I've been wondering as I've been typing up my grandpa's memoirs is how the heck did the previous generations do it?
So during WWII, obviously supplies were scarce, but even when my grandpa starting teaching in the mid 1950's, he "had been issued one package of foolscap, one box of chalk, and one new chalkboard eraser which had to last the school year. A new teacher was fortunate to find a yard stick in the classroom for underlying headings on the blackboard. The school had one stapler and one paper punch for the eight classrooms. These, along with a movie projector had to be signed out from the principal's office.
It had all seemed standard back in the fifties and having over forty students in the class was also quite acceptable."
I don't know, maybe it was better in the US or in the city (these were more or less rural schools) and this is of course anecdotal in one school district and perhaps not representative. But if that was across the board, that was the education of the early Boomers going through primary schools. How did they manage? Or did the subsequent increase in resources negate the deficit of the early years?
edit.
Although, I will say from some his other stories when actually in school, some of the classes were gong shows in high school as a few teachers could not control their class (repeatedly getting locked out by their students) or actively showed a dislike of teenagers in general.)
|
well this is just plain terrible. This is equivalent to calling North Korea the Republic of Korea (or possibly worse since NK doesn't claim that SK is part of their country)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2017-07/8/11/asset/buzzfeed-prod-fastlane-02/sub-buzz-17465-1499527355-1.jpg?downsize=1300:*&output-format=auto&output-quality=auto)
