Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
And further more, truly smart people don't have the need to shout it from the rooftops every hour on the hour. That is reserved for needy dipshits with no self confidence who need constant affirmation that they are not really as stupid as they think they are.
Now conservative governors and mayors want to abolish teachers' right to due process, their seniority, and -- in some states -- their collective bargaining rights. Right-to-work states do not have higher scores than states with strong unions. Actually, the states with the highest performance on national tests are Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Vermont, and New Hampshire, where teachers belong to unions that bargain collectively for their members.
Unions actively lobby to increase education funding and reduce class size, so conservative governors who want to slash education spending feel the need to reduce their clout. This silences the best organized opposition to education cuts.
There has recently been a national furor about school reform. One must wonder how it is possible to talk of improving schools while cutting funding, demoralizing teachers, cutting scholarships to college, and increasing class sizes.
The real story in Madison is not just about unions trying to protect their members' hard-won rights. It is about teachers who are fed up with attacks on their profession. A large group of National Board Certified teachers -- teachers from many states who have passed rigorous examinations by an independent national board -- is organizing a march on Washington in July. The events in Madison are sure to multiply their numbers.
Why America's teachers are enraged - CNN.com
Yeah. I notice bucs didn't supply any corroborating evidence for his claim either. I don't think blacks are the majority in Appalachia are they?No, it's a well documented but contraversial study, group of studies, that links test scores to race. He opened this box, now he's gonna have to discuss it.
Almost 60% of African Americans live in the South, where most low test scoring states are, and are also non-union.
The correlation is with race and test scores, not unions. Which, btw, also goes along a poverty/test score study.
this suggests to me that average lower test scores by blacks have more to do with their being educated in southern states
It was also curious to me that the immediate, and almost genetic reaction from republicans was to blame blacks.
Deep red states that have very low black populations, like Oklahoma and West Virginia have horrible public education. I don't think black people are to blame for Oklahoma's dumb ass education system. Like you, I assumed black people in the south are getting shit educations, because the majority of working class whites in the south are also getting shit educations too. Every race gets screwed down there.
I also imagine that a black person living in Vermont or Maine are getting superior educations, to their southern black peers.
Now conservative governors and mayors want to abolish teachers' right to due process, their seniority, and -- in some states -- their collective bargaining rights. Right-to-work states do not have higher scores than states with strong unions. Actually, the states with the highest performance on national tests are Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Vermont, and New Hampshire, where teachers belong to unions that bargain collectively for their members.
Unions actively lobby to increase education funding and reduce class size, so conservative governors who want to slash education spending feel the need to reduce their clout. This silences the best organized opposition to education cuts.
There has recently been a national furor about school reform. One must wonder how it is possible to talk of improving schools while cutting funding, demoralizing teachers, cutting scholarships to college, and increasing class sizes.
The real story in Madison is not just about unions trying to protect their members' hard-won rights. It is about teachers who are fed up with attacks on their profession. A large group of National Board Certified teachers -- teachers from many states who have passed rigorous examinations by an independent national board -- is organizing a march on Washington in July. The events in Madison are sure to multiply their numbers.
Why America's teachers are enraged - CNN.com
Which states do not have teachers unions? What are their test scores? Can I just point out that states with the worst test scores have teachers unions, or would simple facts escape your understanding?
I have one question, if the fact that 93% of the students in a school district all fail to graduate, is that the fault of the teachers, or is it the fault of the Republicans?
Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com
Aren't conservatives against public schools altogether?
Yes, but most of them at least have enough brain cells not to declare so openly, because they know it's lunacy.
Public Schools are the most prominent example of socialism we have in this country. Conservatives almost universally are opposed to ANYTHING socialist (except the military)
...therefore, yes, of course they are opposed to the public schools.
If Conservatives were ever able to get into real power (which thank goodness they never will) they would get rid of public schools altogether.
You have to realize that the lunacy of conservatism sometimes doesn't show itself that well, but that's only because they rarely if ever get enough power to actually implement their agenda.
Correlation does not suggest causation. In this case, bucs is right. Liberals are generally more intelligent than conservatives; Liberals tend to be pro-union. Hence, there is a noticeable correlation, but it is not necessarily because one causes the other.
That is bullshit. Pure. Simple. Bullshit.
ummm... I'm sorry if it's incompatible with your POV, but it's a fact. It's been true throughout history.
edit: Perhaps it would be more proper to say that intelligent people tend to be more liberal. Back to the causation vs. correlation argument.
...more intelligent individuals are more likely to espouse the value of liberalism than less intelligent individuals, possibly because liberalism is evolutionarily novel and conservatism is evolutionarily familiar.
That is bullshit. Pure. Simple. Bullshit.
ummm... I'm sorry if it's incompatible with your POV, but it's a fact. It's been true throughout history.
edit: Perhaps it would be more proper to say that intelligent people tend to be more liberal. Back to the causation vs. correlation argument.
the more educated people are the more liberal they tend to be, that is fact.
Yeah. I notice bucs didn't supply any corroborating evidence for his claim either. I don't think blacks are the majority in Appalachia are they?this suggests to me that average lower test scores by blacks have more to do with their being educated in southern states
It was also curious to me that the immediate, and almost genetic reaction from republicans was to blame blacks.
Deep red states that have very low black populations, like Oklahoma and West Virginia have horrible public education. I don't think black people are to blame for Oklahoma's dumb ass education system. Like you, I assumed black people in the south are getting shit educations, because the majority of working class whites in the south are also getting shit educations too. Every race gets screwed down there.
I also imagine that a black person living in Vermont or Maine are getting superior educations, to their southern black peers.
That is bullshit. Pure. Simple. Bullshit.
ummm... I'm sorry if it's incompatible with your POV, but it's a fact. It's been true throughout history.
edit: Perhaps it would be more proper to say that intelligent people tend to be more liberal. Back to the causation vs. correlation argument.
Or, just a possibility, the study that found that to be true is flawed.
...more intelligent individuals are more likely to espouse the value of liberalism than less intelligent individuals, possibly because liberalism is evolutionarily novel and conservatism is evolutionarily familiar.
First, it fails to define liberalism v conservatism. Are they using the traditional definition of liberal, which is all about the individual over the sate, or do we use the modern definition, which is about the group over the individual?
Second, what is it that makes anyone think that liberalism is evolutionary novel? Evolution is about change, and the modern idea that conservatism opposes change sounds more evolutionary novel than liberalism to me.
Third, liberals seem to have a hard time dealing with the evolution of political power today. They are insisting that the old structures will work, and that the ultimate outcome of their policies is not leading to the problems it obviously is. Is it really intelligent to insist that conservatives are to blame for the problems that they had little to do with? Liberals have been in charge of the government, media, industry, and education for decades, yet things keep getting worse. Yet, somehow, conservatives are the less intelligent people because they refuse to acknowledge the inherent superiority of liberals.
There has been a debate for years about the validity of IQ tests. Perhaps the reason liberals generally score higher on IQ tests is that they are actually testing for liberal tendencies, and not actual intelligence.
ummm... I'm sorry if it's incompatible with your POV, but it's a fact. It's been true throughout history.
edit: Perhaps it would be more proper to say that intelligent people tend to be more liberal. Back to the causation vs. correlation argument.
the more educated people are the more liberal they tend to be, that is fact.
Could that be because, the more educated you are, the longer you have been exposed to liberal bias?
Bad education is a mixed problem, with poverty and culture being the main culprits.
Hip hop culture does not glorify education. And poverty also does not breed parents who stress education.
All thats needed for a good education is:
- A good lesson
- A motivated teacher
- A willing student
Poor schools can have all the good lessons they want. But if they don't have motivated teachers and willing students, it's not gonna work.
Unions and tenure protect lazy teachers. And lazy teachers don't do much for lazy students. Areas with students who are more motivated to learn will do better, hence, the reason many places with suburban, nuclear family dominated demographics often do well since parents push education more.
"You work three jobs? … Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that." —GWB to a divorced mother of three, Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005
Why do countries with the best education systems on the planet, have unionized teachers, and tenure systems, if unions are supposedly the problem?
Maybe its because unions aren't really the problem with education. I can understand how after reading the Rush Limbaugh website for ten years, some dupe might come to that conclusion.
But if other countries have unionized teachers, value them, and pay them extremely well (in some european countries teachers are paid as well as business people), why are the education systems working very well there, in spite of the allegedly horrific presence of unions?
Maybe if you ignore the Sean Hannity website for five minutes, maybe you might consider there's a host of other problems with american education. That movie conservatives love, Waiting For Superman, makes it a point to say how awesome Finland's education system is. Finland has a strong teachers union and tenure, but Finland also values and supports teachers and children in a way the U.S. doesn't. Its been proven in study after study that universal subsidized day care, universal pre-school, and outstanding universal health care help children achieve better results. The lack of poverty, a generous social welfare state, the value Finland places on teachers, and the support it gives parents with free day care, universal healthcare, and pre-school are obviously something we don't have. And we probably should.
I don't think it is because of unionsActually, the states with the highest performance on national tests are Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Vermont, and New Hampshire, where teachers belong to unions that bargain collectively for their members.
Bad education is a mixed problem, with poverty and culture being the main culprits.
Hip hop culture does not glorify education. And poverty also does not breed parents who stress education.
All thats needed for a good education is:
- A good lesson
- A motivated teacher
- A willing student
Poor schools can have all the good lessons they want. But if they don't have motivated teachers and willing students, it's not gonna work.
Unions and tenure protect lazy teachers. And lazy teachers don't do much for lazy students. Areas with students who are more motivated to learn will do better, hence, the reason many places with suburban, nuclear family dominated demographics often do well since parents push education more.
What about (absentee) parents? How could you leave them out of your evaluation? Many are MIA in no small part due to stagnant wages of the middle and lower classes. Which American pol philosophy generally could give a damn about wages? Hint:
"You work three jobs? Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that." GWB to a divorced mother of three, Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005
Now conservative governors and mayors want to abolish teachers' right to due process, their seniority, and -- in some states -- their collective bargaining rights. Right-to-work states do not have higher scores than states with strong unions. Actually, the states with the highest performance on national tests are Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Vermont, and New Hampshire, where teachers belong to unions that bargain collectively for their members.
Unions actively lobby to increase education funding and reduce class size, so conservative governors who want to slash education spending feel the need to reduce their clout. This silences the best organized opposition to education cuts.
There has recently been a national furor about school reform. One must wonder how it is possible to talk of improving schools while cutting funding, demoralizing teachers, cutting scholarships to college, and increasing class sizes.
The real story in Madison is not just about unions trying to protect their members' hard-won rights. It is about teachers who are fed up with attacks on their profession. A large group of National Board Certified teachers -- teachers from many states who have passed rigorous examinations by an independent national board -- is organizing a march on Washington in July. The events in Madison are sure to multiply their numbers.
Why America's teachers are enraged - CNN.com
Which states do not have teachers unions? What are their test scores? Can I just point out that states with the worst test scores have teachers unions, or would simple facts escape your understanding?
I have one question, if the fact that 93% of the students in a school district all fail to graduate, is that the fault of the teachers, or is it the fault of the Republicans?
Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com
actually that would probably be the fault of the parents. it is important to remember that the shittier the education is, the easier it is to graduate
I don't think it is because of unionsActually, the states with the highest performance on national tests are Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Vermont, and New Hampshire, where teachers belong to unions that bargain collectively for their members.
ummm... I'm sorry if it's incompatible with your POV, but it's a fact. It's been true throughout history.
edit: Perhaps it would be more proper to say that intelligent people tend to be more liberal. Back to the causation vs. correlation argument.
Or, just a possibility, the study that found that to be true is flawed.
First, it fails to define liberalism v conservatism. Are they using the traditional definition of liberal, which is all about the individual over the sate, or do we use the modern definition, which is about the group over the individual?...more intelligent individuals are more likely to espouse the value of liberalism than less intelligent individuals, possibly because liberalism is evolutionarily novel and conservatism is evolutionarily familiar.
Second, what is it that makes anyone think that liberalism is evolutionary novel? Evolution is about change, and the modern idea that conservatism opposes change sounds more evolutionary novel than liberalism to me.
Third, liberals seem to have a hard time dealing with the evolution of political power today. They are insisting that the old structures will work, and that the ultimate outcome of their policies is not leading to the problems it obviously is. Is it really intelligent to insist that conservatives are to blame for the problems that they had little to do with? Liberals have been in charge of the government, media, industry, and education for decades, yet things keep getting worse. Yet, somehow, conservatives are the less intelligent people because they refuse to acknowledge the inherent superiority of liberals.
There has been a debate for years about the validity of IQ tests. Perhaps the reason liberals generally score higher on IQ tests is that they are actually testing for liberal tendencies, and not actual intelligence.
"traditional definition of liberal, which is all about the individual over the s[t]ate"
care to explain wtf you are talking about?
Why do countries with the best education systems on the planet, have unionized teachers, and tenure systems, if unions are supposedly the problem?
Maybe its because unions aren't really the problem with education. I can understand how after reading the Rush Limbaugh website for ten years, some dupe might come to that conclusion.
But if other countries have unionized teachers, value them, and pay them extremely well (in some european countries teachers are paid as well as business people), why are the education systems working very well there, in spite of the allegedly horrific presence of unions?
Maybe if you ignore the Sean Hannity website for five minutes, maybe you might consider there's a host of other problems with american education. That movie conservatives love, Waiting For Superman, makes it a point to say how awesome Finland's education system is. Finland has a strong teachers union and tenure, but Finland also values and supports teachers and children in a way the U.S. doesn't. Its been proven in study after study that universal subsidized day care, universal pre-school, and outstanding universal health care help children achieve better results. The lack of poverty, a generous social welfare state, the value Finland places on teachers, and the support it gives parents with free day care, universal healthcare, and pre-school are obviously something we don't have. And we probably should.
THAT kinda bit Cuyo in the assYes, I'm sure you are,, and this explains the massive failures in unionized liberalland how exactly?
You have a Wisconsin governor who is fiscally irresponsible and sent the state and its people into a black hole, and then you say liberals failed "massively?" LMAO!!! Your an imbecile.
In six weeks he managed to destroy a state?
Hey Cuyo.... I thought you said liberals are generally more intelligent than conservatives.... where the fuck are the smart liberals? Because Shittoe here is lowering the collective IQ of liberals disproportionately.
