|
United States24513 Posts
|
sounds idiotic parents are just going to choose all the good schools, meaning that the bad schools will have few students and the good students will get swamped with too many kids, becoming "bad" with unruly kids
does this policy include magnet schools as well? i dont think it said
|
United States24513 Posts
On August 10 2008 12:20 kpcrew(Gg) wrote: does this policy include magnet schools as well? i dont think it said I could be wrong, but I think the Magnet program operates independently for the most part.
|
Unlike Obama, McCain didn't particularly flesh out the kind of action that he would do, that leaves much to interpretation as to how exactly the policies will be carried out.
To be fair, it doesn't really change anything. Parents are already living at places where they will be able to allow their child better education, should they be able to afford it, and in some cases even when it is above their means. If he fleshes this out some more, we would be able to make better judgments.
EDIT - I guess if I have to say something, in comparison to what Obama has suggested, this feels much more reasonable even if I don't know what the heck McCain plans to do. I guess it is a case where something I don't know the exact contents of turning out to be more appealing than something I know has some aspects that I dislike. Not particularly sound logic, but can't be avoided. It won't do for McCain to flesh out a ton of plans that will ultimately be creating a larger federal government, and it seems rather that the responsibilities will diffuse down to the lower state level for the most part.
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
holy shit this is absolutely impossible. Here comes 3000+ kids flooding into the #1 HS within a 1.5 hour radius hurraayyyyyy
|
Parents can already send their kids to whatever schools they want.
1. Move 2. Pay for a private school
This isn't much of a policy, especially considering that it contains absolutely no details on how it would be implemented.
|
like saying 1. earn money 2. marry 3. buy house
|
Haji, unless we have 3000 families that are willing to spend that much of a commute time for their children, that won't happen. We already have an ability to choose schooling via home location, and it is particularly prominent among Asians to move to districts with good education. There is no way the said HS will accept all those students either, and McCain isn't stupid enough to force schools to accept students that they have no interest in accepting.
How people can call a policy that doesn't contain any statement specific enough in execution to be bullshit is rather odd to me, anyone care to explain?
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
I guess it's supposed to give hope to pple who live in the ghetto or something? THen the kid will prolly get shot by some kids b/c he's not 'one' with the crowd or some retarded shit.
Sounds more like "John McCain's empty promise on education policy"
|
|
If that's the strategy that McCain is aiming for, then there is no way he is going to beat out Obama, I should hope that is not the case. That or he needs to fire some aides. Obama's take on the issue is by far more hopeful for those who have underprivileged backgrounds, this is just like...a vague something that could potentially be good, maybe.
|
United States24513 Posts
On August 10 2008 12:35 Ecael wrote: How people can call a policy that doesn't contain any statement specific enough in execution to be bullshit is rather odd to me, anyone care to explain? Let me clarify. I don't mean his entire policy is bullshit (since it isn't clear what it is). I mean, the information on that page (henceforth referred to as his policy on education) is bullshit.
Edit: Then again, I'll probably label anything pro-NCLB as bullshit at this point without even reading it because of how charged that term is for me
|
It hurts my head to read policy like this because of the constant use of buzz words. As said before, it doesn't seem like he is actually saying much other than he wants to remove the geographic boundaries that schools set for their student populace. I don't really think this will improve the education system at all.
Bullshit over here.
|
On August 10 2008 12:50 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2008 12:35 Ecael wrote: How people can call a policy that doesn't contain any statement specific enough in execution to be bullshit is rather odd to me, anyone care to explain? Let me clarify. I don't mean his entire policy is bullshit (since it isn't clear what it is). I mean, the information on that page (henceforth referred to as his policy on education) is bullshit. Edit: Then again, I'll probably label anything pro-NCLB as bullshit at this point without even reading it because of how charged that term is for me If memory serves, you teach Physics right? Must be tough working with that. That said, far as I can tell, he isn't pro-NCLB per se, but took a stance to "draw upon the lessons of NCLB". What does that mean? Who knows.
The press release linked at the bottom provided better information, I guess the first page was closer to a mission statement than a policy. That said, that press release was still fairly vague, and avoided much of the details. Odd though, the site focused way more on the parental power than the press release, which glossed over it in like two paragraphs max.
|
I'm still not convinced there's a framework in place for government at the federal level to really really really significantly impact the quality of education in the US. So much of the money for our schools and teachers comes from local property taxes, the school boards are all locally elected, etc. Maybe if the US dumped a shit-ton of cash into incentives for teachers and pell grants and stuff like that, but I can't see that happening either.
|
United States24513 Posts
On August 10 2008 12:59 Ecael wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2008 12:50 micronesia wrote:On August 10 2008 12:35 Ecael wrote: How people can call a policy that doesn't contain any statement specific enough in execution to be bullshit is rather odd to me, anyone care to explain? Let me clarify. I don't mean his entire policy is bullshit (since it isn't clear what it is). I mean, the information on that page (henceforth referred to as his policy on education) is bullshit. Edit: Then again, I'll probably label anything pro-NCLB as bullshit at this point without even reading it because of how charged that term is for me If memory serves, you teach Physics right? Must be tough working with that. That said, far as I can tell, he isn't pro-NCLB per se, but took a stance to "draw upon the lessons of NCLB". What does that mean? Who knows. The press release linked at the bottom provided better information, I guess the first page was closer to a mission statement than a policy. That said, that press release was still fairly vague, and avoided much of the details. Odd though, the site focused way more on the parental power than the press release, which glossed over it in like two paragraphs max. Note bolded segment above. I agree with what you are saying for the most part. My issue is the assumptions and conclusions regarding NCLB that are implied. Generally what I've observed is politicians and bureaucrats make claims about education that are completely wrong, and then preach this to the general public. But this only works to an extent since there are many teachers and students in the USA.
Most of what NCLB has done is find excuses to place blame (where it isn't even due).
|
United States24513 Posts
On August 10 2008 13:01 talismania wrote: I'm still not convinced there's a framework in place for government at the federal level to really really really significantly impact the quality of education in the US. So much of the money for our schools and teachers comes from local property taxes, the school boards are all locally elected, etc. Maybe if the US dumped a shit-ton of cash into incentives for teachers and pell grants and stuff like that, but I can't see that happening either. You are right that it's very difficult for the federal government to improve education, given its constitutional role in education. However, it's very easy for the federal government to screw up education, as has been occurring for several years (on a wide scale)
|
Agreed, it is particularly difficult for the federal government to directly improve education in the limitations of its power concerning that field. Thus my skepticism about Obama's stated goals in the area, McCain's vague suggestions seems to hit closer to me in the supposed increase of flexibility in the parent and principal's decisions.
As for NCLB, well, I don't know. It has been used as a method of shifting blame around rather than something that actually mattered. Neither candidate were willing to make much of anything of this, it just got glossed over. An initiative like NCLB is going to be around for a while, and I highly doubt that either candidates will be able to do anything on the matter before more [un]favorable results come to light.
|
also hes an idiot for claiming to prevent "speculators from driving up food prices" its simple supply and demand, speculators have little to do with higher food prices
demand for oil up, food costs more to transport, higher prices etc.
but then again barack obama acting like a real politician himself, unlike the image he presented before the dnc
|
I present to you an economic bubble. Speculation definitely could have an effect on food prices, though in this case it is not really fair to call people investing in commodities as to be secure against a plummeting dollar speculators.
EDIT - Besides, he can't feasibly blame it on anything else, lol. Any politician would take the free scapegoat offered to them in speculators, and financial regulators are only too happy to join in the ass covering.
|
|
|
|