posted
I'm a teacher, and I don't hate NCLB. I don't love it either. I think it's a complex issue. Which is why I'm not bothering to try to engage Battler03 in a discussion.
Spending a day or more on testing each weak is ridiculous. I spend about one day a year talking about FCAT, and that's because they make me. I don't believe practice tests will have a measurable impact on my kids' performance on the test--especially in light of the teaching time I would lose doing all that FCAT practice--so I just don't bother. I do my job and I don't think about the test and I trust things to take care of themselves. If your administration won't let you do that, that's a shame; I believe your administration is short-sighted then. But if that's your choice, let me encourage you to not waste the time, and not be paranoid about the test.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you, Icarus. That's exactly how I feel about it. If you've covered the material, it shouldn't be hard to pass a test on the material. I was part of the FCAT test group. It was no different from the Iowa or the CTBS or any of the other standardized tests I took every year I was in school. (Well, except for the geometry they snuck in. But that's another rant.)
My peeking from the outside guess is that teaching comes down to what the administration allows the teachers to do. And learning comes down to what the student bothers to remember. Honestly, the more I hear the stories from the folks in the system, the more discuraged I get. How do you reach someone who doesn't value what you're offering them, no matter how innovative the admin lets you present it?
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not at all paranoid about the tests. You can only teach your material, you can't take the tests for the kids. I do my best to prepare them to the fullest of my capabilities by teaching the required curriculmn. Unfortunately, in my district that means testing the crap out of the kids. I would never chose to do it that way. In fact I have serious issues with the way our administration wants things done. I agree that the rediculous focus on testing is very nearsighted. We are a very reactionary district. We fix the symptoms, one by one, as they occur. And that of course fixes nothing what so ever. We seem to have new policy, philosophy and curriculmn on an almost yearly basis. In fact, it has been two years since I have actually read a novel in my 8th grade reading class. Our course of study does not allow for it. Perhaps that is why I dislike NCLB so much. Maybe there are districts that can better approach how to deal with the requirments and but my own district has been very frustrating in their approach. My class is one of the dullest classes in the 8th grade year and it's because they have us using a form of BASIL reading texts all year long. And unfortunately I've been a little too outspoken about other issues in the building to become much more of a rebel. I've pretty much allienated myself from the entire administartion because of how poorly they deal with our student body and how unwilling I am to let them sweep problems under the table when I am involved. So rocking the ship by refusing to teach the board mandated curriculmn is not an option I have right now. So... yea, you can probably see my frustrations and all of this is linked back to the paranoia the district has due to the NCLB act.
oh, and with all that said, definately no, Kerry would not have been better. Should prabably be on topic for a second at least!!
Posts: 1294 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do these people realize that tests are so boring? Couldn't they find a way to reform the system without torturing children with boring tests and taking away the things the kids actually enjoy? You got to think of each individual child and the unique way they think, but I don't think anyone wants to take the trouble to do that. Bush's solutions just seem like putting bandands on gaping wounds that are infected.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I had to go to bed, so I took off. I see the debate has unfortunately gone off onto a NCLB tangent. If I had a hand in that, then I'm sorry.
To whoever that guy was who said "I'm a teacher and I hate NCLB;" I guess you must happen to know some good teachers who dislike the standards. In my experience, the only people who dislike standards are those who are afraid they'll fail to meet them. But maybe you have anecdotal evidence to the contrary. There are outliers and misnomers to every hard fact.
To the dude who said I'm a Republican: in fact, I'm not sure I am anymore. They've really abandoned conservative values. The party as a whole, in regard to the candidates they've advanced in the last election and the upcoming one, is either actually moving left or devoid of any ideology whatsoever (leading me to believe they're just waiting for a concrete poll so they can decide what to "believe"...I hate it when Dems do it, and I hate it that Republicans have started now also).
Bush has abandoned some crucial conservative issues, such as social security reform; and has completely missed the target on immigration. The second a Republican starts sounding like those One World, La Raza types, you know we're through the looking glass. The important thing is that no matter what our president has done wrong, he's light-years beyond that elitist Brahmin snob Kerry.
Finally, whoever that was that had a problem with my talk of the empire (I think it was Lyrhawn): look, I'm not lobbying for the establishment of an American empire. I'm saying we ALREADY HAVE ONE, whether you find it palatable to admit or not. People up on their ivory crosses love to decry imperialism while ignoring the facts that a) we're already living in an empire (read Imperial Grunts if you're the type of person to listen to reason) and b) empires are not necessarily a bad thing. Regarding point b I just made: look at the British Empire. There's almost no former British colonies that are not far better off than their 3rd-world-hellhole neighbors.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: 5. Read more than a science fiction book buddy. I’m not only talking about carbon emissions, actually, I’m not talking AT ALL about carbon emissions. I’m talking about Bush allowing deforestation, allowing dirtier air, allowing dirtier water. I’m talking about his opposition to Green initiatives that will save our businesses and homes billions of dollars in energy savings from efficiency. I want clean water, clean air, big forests, protected wildlife, and to pay as little for energy as I can without sacrificing the other things. If you’re against those things, I don’t know what to tell you. And by the way ‘the environment can take care of itself,’ is a great sign that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Getting your facts from Crichton and being proud of it is pretty good confirmation too. Do some reading, learn your facts. Also read interviews from Christine Todd Whitman, former head of the EPA under Bush. She quit because she couldn’t put up with anymore of Bush’s interference with protecting the environment. He hid reports or buried information that showed his policies were damaging. But hey, the trees can take care of themselves right? [/QB]
Yeah, they can. It is the absolute perfect example of ethnocentrism (which crazy lib types despise, right?) to imagine that we can do ANYTHING to harm our planet. It is a PLANET. We are ANIMALS on it. If all the antelope got together and decided to kill the planet, it wouldn't really amount to much, would it? Same thing with us.
The EPA is a bunch of commies and bureaucrats. I have to deal with the EPA almost every day (we have inspectors that come around and "inspect" our dumpsters). I know them to be generally a bunch of ghetto or white trash idiots who will let your dumpsters pass if you sweet-talk or bribe them and fail you if you don't show them the "proper respect." They're like TSA screeners, only slightly more powerful. Seriously--this comes from somebody who not only is debating against you, but also genuinely wants you to improve your argument--if you're arguing FOR the enviro-wacko side, better to not mention the EPA around anyone who knows.
I never said I'm getting my facts from the fiction portion of State of Fear. Although Crichton does exclusively use factual research in his books. (On a side note, it's funny how the same people who laud Crichton's "real-world" research for Jurassic Park or Prey seem to think his research is inadequate for State of Fear.) I get my facts from history. There have been numerous climate scares over the course of American history. Remember in the 60s and 70s, when all the "scientists" claimed that we were due for a global COOLING epidemic? I'm still waiting. I've got my parka and fleece all stockpiled. I've got my dog-sledding team all ready to travel across the frozen tundra of southern Florida. So when the hell can I expect THAT to happen?
Tell you what--if you can predict the weather for the parking lot outside my office (a space of perhaps about fifty square feet) for the next month, then I'll believe your ability to predict the weather for the entire earth for the next thousand years. Let me know if you want to take me up on my offer.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, We're POWERFUL animals. Nuclear weapons come to mind. Germ warfare? Mustard gas? Radioactive wastes? What other animal can do more damage than people? London during the industrial revolution comes to mind. Acid rain, smog, we can make a ton of changes to the environment a bunch of antelope can't. But you got to admit you get something like locusts, various bacteria and the stuff they can do... I say it's not a bad thing to take care of the environment. That's the frustrating thing about both liberals and conservatives. No balance. no middle ground. We can't go back to the forest, but we sure can protect them and have a balance between industry and nature.
Dood. This statement There's almost no former British colonies that are not far better off than their 3rd-world-hellhole neighbors. IS NOT LOGICAL. India comes to mind, tons of povery there... Man, you are getting on my last NERVES. Perhaps i should simply ignore it...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:empires are not necessarily a bad thing. Regarding point b I just made: look at the British Empire. There's almost no former British colonies that are not far better off than their 3rd-world-hellhole neighbors.
This here? This is awesome. We need to be told about how bad Kerry is by this guy.
posted
Well, you guys can call me a troll if it makes you more comfortable. You obviously have that luxury, me being just a figment of your internet imagination. If it's so important to you to be right--to the detriment of our common love of OSC books--then I'll yield the floor.
I want you anti-imperialist dudes to go and study just a little bit of history. Seriously--if you actually LEARN some stuff about colonialism, you find out that it actually helped the undeveloped nations. There are exceptions--such as the Mayan Empire, which only really HURT its client states--but by and large, the mother countries did nothing but help the client states. And again--I am by no means arguing in favor of the establishment of an American Empire. I'm merely saying...it is ALREADY IN PLACE. If you refuse to see fact, that is your business. I don't make the rules; I just live by them.
Having made my brilliant, irrefutable point, like I said earlier, I yield the floor to you guys. My opinion, in regard to the original post: yes, abso-effing-lutely, Bush is light-years better than Stretch would have been.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok... I just try to ignore it, but it's really difficult... Because those statements are not completely logical at all!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I want you anti-imperialist dudes to go and study just a little bit of history. Seriously--if you actually LEARN some stuff about colonialism, you find out that it actually helped the undeveloped nations.
The only way I can envision colonialism being a force for good and the advancement of underdeveloped nations is if I were capable of cognitive dissonance powerful enough to eradicate Africa from my working knowledge of the world. You know, that big lump in the middle of the Mercator projection?
Anyone who actually has a clue about the subject -- and isn't just hashing out romantic notions of imperialist idealism -- knows that the aftereffects of colonialism were about the strongest factor in producing the miseries and disparities of the third world.
You sound almost like what Mig or Reshpec would sound like if they weren't afraid about wrecking whatever credibility they had left.
That said, it's like you were sent by God himself to help my thread. Nothing this perfect is ever coincidental. 8)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That said, active investment and confrontation with African problems could almost be considered a form of economic imperialism, but it'd be great for the country we did it to. They'd get all the economic benefits (well, we'd get a ton too, but still), and I think the engagement would balance their political spectrum too, but we wouldn't have troops on the ground an imperial governor in their capital.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Helped in some ways, sure. Many of the countries learned valuable things about law and technology, and had significant infrastructure enhancements. Of course, many of those benefits were occurring without the imperialism. Take a look at Thailand.
Led to some of the greatest bloodshed outside the world wars in the twentieth century, that too (in a few months, over one million civilians died during the partition of India, and a similar story was repeated many places the British bungled their departure from). Oppressed hundreds of millions. Created territorial divisions that seem designed to bring about terrorists.
Perhaps you should study more than just a little bit of history, it might save you from appearing as if you hadn't studied it at all.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Helped in some ways, sure. Many of the countries learned valuable things about law and technology, and had significant infrastructure enhancements. Of course, many of those benefits were occurring without the imperialism. Take a look at Thailand.
Thank you, Fugu. No one ever suggested that colonialism did no good for the native peoples it subjugated or destroyed.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And again--I am by no means arguing in favor of the establishment of an American Empire. I'm merely saying...it is ALREADY IN PLACE.
This is what the terrorists believe. I am not saying this is right or wrong, but this opinion is far from unfounded.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You guys are ignoring the fact that I've said I don't argue in favor of or against an American Empire; merely, as an historian myself, I'm only saying that one already exists. You say po-tah-toe, I say po-tay-toe. It's an empire.
The point is, Kerry would not be a better bathroom attendant, much less president.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:The point is, Kerry would not be a better bathroom attendant, much less president.
I wonder, how far do you really expect to get with the argument that Bush is a better bathroom attendant than Kerry would have theoretically been?
Either way, I fully agree with you. Given Bush's skill set prior to becoming President, his personality and his intelligence level, I think Bush would have been a phenomenal bathroom attendant compared to Kerry.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You guys are ignoring the fact that I've said I don't argue in favor of or against an American Empire
o rly
quote:mpires are not necessarily a bad thing. Regarding point b I just made: look at the British Empire. There's almost no former British colonies that are not far better off than their 3rd-world-hellhole neighbors.
quote: Seriously--if you actually LEARN some stuff about colonialism, you find out that it actually helped the undeveloped nations. There are exceptions--such as the Mayan Empire, which only really HURT its client states--but by and large, the mother countries did nothing but help the client states.
You make statements in egregious error. "The mother countries did nothing but help the client states?" Brilliant. Brilliant conclusion, Lord Battlington. We'll just ignore the fact that colonialism threw Africa into territorial ethnic disputes and treasury robbery and drop-transition that leave many millions in unimaginable poverty and misery.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
