IWF Denounces Racist Depictions of Dr. Condoleezza Rice in Popular Editorial Cartoons

[Switch84]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Yeah I'm afraid that's true in a lot of cases.

There are better ways to reduce inequality like fixing the school where they get the poor grades rather than lowering their college entry requirements because they went there.

If that makes sense...

Makes sense to me! I've been saying that for years!

[Nickdfresh]

No "conservatives" like Ashcroft believe in a one nation two state system where fundamental inequalities start with inner-city schools receiving drastically lower funding than suburban white schools. Then those inner city kids can be kept poor and uneducated forever! Yeah!

Of course the thin veneer of their bullshit hypocritical views and double standards falls off when we talk about defense spending. Try making the same arguments for the military that "conservatives" make for schools.

ex. "Underperforming fighter squadrons suffering from maintenance failures as a result of a spare parts shortage shouldn't get more money, they should be closed down or the pilots should be fired."

"It's the soldiers fault that they are running out of ammunition in combat (which is actually sort of true in Iraq), they should learn to fire at the enemy less in combat."

It's a bunch of horseshit! We can raise money for the military because apparently money matters when it comes to the quality of weapon systems. And all I hear is bitching and moaning about how defense spending during the Clinton Administration was too low. But apparently money plays no part in the quality of education.

[Switch84]

:confused: This may be over-simplifying the issue, but why can't school vouchers be implicated across the board? If public schools are failing, why make the kids suffer from it? The parents should be able to pick and choose which schools best deserve their taxpayers dollars.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Switch84
:confused: This may be over-simplifying the issue, but why can't school vouchers be implicated across the board? If public schools are failing, why make the kids suffer from it? The parents should be able to pick and choose which schools best deserve their taxpayers dollars.

I'm not saying that's a bad idea, but recent research has shown that corporate "charter" schools have the exact same problems as public schools. The money to performance ratio is exactly the same. While I am not disputing that a lot of factors such as bad parenting and social problems arising from crimes and drugs are real problems, the main problem is and has always been insufficient funding based on the local tax base issue.

I'll be the first to decry Affirmative Action when the same amount of money is spent to educate each and every child in this country through 12th grade! Republican "family values" my ass!

For more information, read Jonathan Kozol's landmark book and research on the subject! "Savage Inequalities" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...988670-4485566

[Switch84]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I'm not saying that's a bad idea, but recent research has shown that corporate "charter" schools have the exact same problems as public schools. The money to performance ratio is exactly the same. While I am not disputing that a lot of factors such as bad parenting and social problems arising from crimes and drugs are real problems, the main problem is and has always been insufficient funding based on the local tax base issue.

I'll be the first to decry Affirmative Action when the same amount of money is spent to educate each and every child in this country through 12th grade! Republican "family values" my ass!

For more information, read Jonathan Kozol's landmark book and research on the subject! "Savage Inequalities" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...988670-4485566

Cool! I'll check that out.

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
No "conservatives" like Ashcroft believe in a one nation two state system where fundamental inequalities start with inner-city schools receiving drastically lower funding than suburban white schools. Then those inner city kids can be kept poor and uneducated forever! Yeah!

Of course the thin veneer of their bullshit hypocritical views and double standards falls off when we talk about defense spending. Try making the same arguments for the military that "conservatives" make for schools.

ex. "Underperforming fighter squadrons suffering from maintenance failures as a result of a spare parts shortage shouldn't get more money, they should be closed down or the pilots should be fired."

"It's the soldiers fault that they are running out of ammunition in combat (which is actually sort of true in Iraq), they should learn to fire at the enemy less in combat."

It's a bunch of horseshit! We can raise money for the military because apparently money matters when it comes to the quality of weapon systems. And all I hear is bitching and moaning about how defense spending during the Clinton Administration was too low. But apparently money plays no part in the quality of education.

And I stand by my assessment. You have no fucking clue.

You have no fucking clue as to just what I believe, or apparently what any other Conservative believes. Like Switch said, who's the party pushing vouchers? Certainly not liberals. In fact, it's your party that benefits most by keeping a certain voting block illiterate. Your party has blocked every attempt to change the miserably failing status quo in your pet social programs. It's Republicans like John Engler that come up with solutions to the mess your politicians have created. In fact, when's the last time you heard a "solution" from politicians from your side of the aisle that didn't include massive bureaucratic control over the lives of private individuals? Go on, list just one.

You see, the problem with you libs is you're much more interested in "process" rather than actual "results". You feel so much better about yourselves when you institute a "process" to deal with social inequities. If the results don't materialize, it's always because there's simply "not enough money" thrown at it. Problem is, your handout philosophy is destructive, counter productive, and counter to human nature. Your party is perfectly contempt in enslaving generations of people to your "process", just so long as they vote for the "right" people every couple of years. Don't believe me? Look at the behavior your party displays towards successfull African Americans who've had the outright gall to make it on thier own. Can't have the Black folk off the plantation, right? In fact, I seem to remember a certain memo from the Judiciary Committee illustrating the party's true feelings towards minority advancement.

Have you heard of it?

[Nickdfresh]

What results? Test scores? Is that how you measure results? No Ash, you have no fucking clue! Some of us have experience of what goes on behind the scenes and little of it has to do with the knee jerk bullshit you just spouted off. Results! Ha! I've seen teachers and administrators outright lie about their results! The American educational system is fucked up, and only more so due to with More Children Left Behind! Basically, it's about the money stupid! And whatever you say different, and believe me I've read quite a bit on this, is complete and utter bullshit designed to by either by intention or accident to maintain the status quo class strata. It comes down to one thing Ash, how much you spend on each child's education. But give em' more tests that can be altered or dumbed down like W. likes. It's no wonder our economy is in decline while the deficit is soaring!

Try reading Kozol, and then give me your assessment! By the way, you could try the library, that way you won't have to pay for it and bitch about buying "liberal propaganda."

[Switch84]

Originally posted by Switch84
:confused: This may be over-simplifying the issue, but why can't school vouchers be IMPLEMENTED across the board? If public schools are failing, why make the kids suffer from it? The parents should be able to pick and choose which schools best deserve their taxpayers dollars.

That's better! LOL!

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Basically, it's about the money stupid! And whatever you say different, and believe me I've read quite a bit on this, is complete and utter bullshit designed to by either by intention or accident to maintain the status quo class strata. It comes down to one thing Ash, how much you spend on each child's education.

OK, you asked for it...

U.S. tops in education spending, but not scores

WASHINGTON -- The United States spends more public and private money on education than other major countries, but its performance doesn't measure up in areas ranging from high-school graduation rates to test scores in math, reading and science, a new report shows.

"There are countries which don't get the bang for the bucks, and the U.S. is one of them," said Barry McGaw, education director for the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which produced the annual review of industrialized nations.

The United States spent $10,240 per student from elementary school through college in 2000, according to the report. The average was $6,361 among more than 25 nations.

How much is enough you fucking moron???? It's not "the money" stupid. It's your fucking liberal system controlled by the teacher's union that's the problem! It's the fact that teachers can't pass a simple fucking competency test, but instead of firing the teachers, the union has the test thrown out!!!!! Are you really this fucking stupid?

The range stretched from less than $3,000 per student in Turkey, Mexico, the Slovak Republic and Poland to more than $8,000 per student in Denmark, Norway, Austria and Switzerland.

Gee, we outspend some of the best educational systems in Europe... Imagine that. And yet we still rank low. What gives Nick?

The report cited Australia, Finland, Ireland, Korea and the United Kingdom as examples of OECD nations that have moderate spending on primary and lower secondary education but high levels of performance by 15-year-olds in key subject areas.

As for the United States, it finished in the middle of the pack in its 15-year-olds' performance on math, reading and science in 2000, and its high-school graduation rate was below the international average in 2001 -- figures highlighted by Education Secretary Rod Paige.

The country fared better in reading literacy among fourth-graders, where it finished among the top scorers in 2001. But the declining performance as students grow older served as a warning to the nation, Paige said.

But at least the sex-ed courses are up and running, right?

"These results highlight an extremely important truth about our educational system: I think we have become complacent, self-satisfied and often lacking the will to do better," Paige said.

Appropriate spending has emerged as a key political issue this year as the nation's schools deal with federal reforms. The No Child Left Behind law demands better performance from students and teachers, particularly in low-income districts, but critics say Republican leaders in Congress have spent too little on the effort.

The report, released Tuesday, sets international benchmarks and identifies areas for improvement.

Based on educational level, the report says the United States spends the most on higher education for every student and is a leading spender on primary and secondary education.

I simply must repeat this...

Based on educational level, the report says the United States spends the most on higher education for every student and is a leading spender on primary and secondary education.

Paige said the nation must fill the gap between it and other countries, and bridge another between students succeeding in American public schools and those falling behind. Within that promising fourth-grade reading showing in the United States, Paige said, is a revealing number: the higher the percentage of poor students, the lower the average score.

"There's no such thing as a 'typical' fourth-grader," Paige said. "We want to go to each fourth-grader. We need to see who needs the help."

The new federal law requires states to chart adequate yearly progress -- not just for a school's overall population, but for groups such as minorities and students who speak little English. Sanctions grow by the year for schools receiving low-income aid that don't improve enough. Consequences range from letting students transfer to a better school within their districts to handing control of a poor-performing school to the state.

"No other country is imposing such a rigorous requirement on its schools," McGaw said.

But from school boards to Congress, growing numbers of leaders say the federal government isn't committing enough money to the task. States must, for example, expand their standardized testing and put a highly qualified teacher in every core class by 2005-06.

Federal education spending has grown by $11 billion since President Bush took office, Paige said, but that includes spending beyond the first 12 grades. Even increased money for elementary and secondary education doesn't cover the law's sweeping expenses, said David Shreve of the National Conference of State Legislatures.

"You can't just mandate that things happen and then not follow up with the resources to make it happen," said Shreve, senior director for the conference's education committee.

Comparisons of spending among countries is difficult, he added, because the systems vary widely.

Note: the link is here , but you have to register to read (it's free).

[Ally_Kat]

Disclaimer -- I'm telling the NY pov. I realize other states have different certificate procedures, yada, yada, yada.

Originally posted by John Ashcroft

It's the fact that teachers can't pass a simple fucking competency test, but instead of firing the teachers, the union has the test thrown out!!!!!

Let's start even before that. Let's start when someone decides to become a teacher.

Here in NYC, as I'm sure in the majority of places across the US, there is a very visible teacher shortage. So bad that there's a program in place for people who just graduated college and career-changers. If you are willing to teach at whatever high-need school they place you at, anyone can become a teacher, granted they get the masters and pass the license tests.

The deal is so sweet that the state will not only pay for you to get the masters, but while you do it, you will be given a teaching job and paid. Sounds really nice isn't it?

There's close to a 90% dropout rate.

Why?

For people in the city, the colleges they send you to -- well, let's say that there are public high schools that are more efficient.

People either get frustrated because they are not learning how to handle the problems they are facing in these high-need areas they are assigned to, or they get frustrated because they are not passing some of those licensing tests dealing with shit they should be learning in those evening classes they are taking.

So then they drop out, and I've heard that those who do need to pay back the money spent on them.

And the shortage continues. Yay.

But yeah, everyone I know who's done and/or attempted that teaching fellowship program have some interesting horror stories.

[John Ashcroft]

Gee Ally, so you're telling me that throwing money at the problem isn't working??? Say it isn't so!

[rustoffa]

And then you have the snowballing popularity of home-schooling.

I have no problem with the premise, but it lends itself well to the polarized and paranoid views of fanatics and left-leaning wackos equally.

There's obviously no substitute for basic juvenile socialization.

From what I've seen of the local guidelines and accreditation requirements...It's a clusterfuck.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Gee Ally, so you're telling me that throwing money at the problem isn't working??? Say it isn't so!

eh...more like if you are going to offer that for someone who wants to teach, at least be able to send them to a place that'll teach them. Which I don't understand. They are all CUNY schools that the city sends you to, and thus the same tuition. Why put all these people at the one that's crappy?

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Or politcal cartoons. Has Condi recovered yet?

I'm sure the racist tirades from the Left aren't over yet.

[freak]

She's a non-Democrat black woman holding a powerful office. They will do whatever it takes to paint her as an "Uncle Tom" sell-out simply for that reason.

Her being there makes it terribly difficult to play the "Racist Republican oppressor of women" card.

The race baiting vitreol hasn't even started yet....Just wait until she runs for president...and wins.