It's official: Texas just set the US education system back 40 years

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

CE and BCE are fucking stupid anyway, i mean the birth of Christ is still the change over from BCE to CE so what's the goddamn difference other than some annoying letters?

and unfortunately i'm finding myself agreeing with nimrod, america is a constitutional republic.

And I find myself agreeing with you... if we are to use our current calendar then changing the letters does nothing more than obfuscate its origin.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

Power is going to be consolidated no matter what system is in place. I am in favor of consolidating it on a larger scale, which in turn moderates whatever gets done. I don't think it's right to enable states to control the educations of their children when it can make them less competitive with children in their own country. If whatever gets done effects the entire country, than the odds of instituting crazy educational policies decreases. I'm not really sure how bad whatever just happened in Texas is, but the potential for the complete bastardization of education is surely there right now. I'm not really sure how you think that should be fixed, as a total reliance on the market would do away with any sort of base level of quality that has to be reached.

Seriously? Consolidating power moderates effect? Do you have any concept of history regarding highly consolidated government?

I'm amazed at times that you're not still that young high school naive idealist.

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by cocksure

um so how serious are you about this whole anarcho-capitalist revolution thing? you think people are never going to want it but you still think they should want it or something? is this some kind of reverse leninism

The way I see it playing out is having the movement exist in "intelligentsia" form (as it is now) for some time, perhaps centuries. Like most sea-changes, some event or crisis will uncover this material into the mainstream to the point where people actually view it as the best option. Depending on the state of things, this could turn violent, but I really, really hope that it is more of an devolution process where people just sort of stop supporting the state through peaceful means, i.e. soldiers lay down their weapons, people quit their government jobs. States simply become ignored and disintegrate as communities and voluntary organisations return to doing those things which the state had taken over.

Obviously hardcore Marxism believed that this kind of conciousness needed help from a revolution, and saw this as inevitable. I think a peaceful return to anarchism is ideal, and probably the most consistent with its tenets.

[duovamp]

Speaking of idealists, here come the guys who want that thing that's never even almost happened and never could, and most economists disregard as utter fantasy. Buuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrn.

And what do you mean by "Obviously hardcore Marxism believed" btw?

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

Seriously? Consolidating power moderates effect? Do you have any concept of history regarding highly consolidated government?

I'm amazed at times that you're not still that young high school naive idealist.

ugh

you're oversimplifying what i said.

but you're an idiot so whatever.

[Eulogy]

i find it really odd that i have to defend the notion that large, representative, samples of the entire population of a nation tend to have moderated viewpoints on most things as compared to smaller, regional, ideologically homogeneous ones. jesus christ.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by duovamp

Speaking of idealists, here come the guys who want that thing that's never even almost happened and never could, and most economists disregard as utter fantasy. Buuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrn.

And what do you mean by "Obviously hardcore Marxism believed" btw?

screw practicality and reality, man, i got principle.

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by duovamp

And what do you mean by "Obviously hardcore Marxism believed" btw?

I mean that obviously [in that it is clear in texts] hardcore Marxism [not socialism or a Marxian philosophy, but the idealistically pure Marxism] believed [as in hypothesised or proposed].

[duovamp]

"Marxism believed" is the problem I have. Your usage is giving me an aneurysm.

[Order 66]

marxism is axiomatically copulated to be believed

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by duovamp

"Marxism believed" is the problem I have. Your usage is giving me an aneurysm.

Would you prefer I said "Marxism postulated" or "Marxism proposed" or "Marxism theorised?" I used "believed" to indicate that we are talking about something that is akin to a religious dogma of Marxism rather than an legitimate theory.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

i find it really odd that i have to defend the notion that large, representative, samples of the entire population of a nation tend to have moderated viewpoints on most things as compared to smaller, regional, ideologically homogeneous ones. jesus christ.

I'd love to see your opinion of the 2002 Curriculum as approved by Bush and the GOP Congress.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

I'd love to see your opinion of the 2002 Curriculum as approved by Bush and the GOP Congress.

the one that focused almost exclusively on raising scores in math and english language standardized tests?

not really a whole lot of wiggle room in those two areas. what's your point. nclb sucks for all sorts of reasons. but please point me in the direction of questionable curriculum decisions that were made inside of it.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

does texas represent the entire country?

no.

your argument only holds water if you feel that the population of texas draws a sample that is representative of the american population. it doesn't. so shut up.

This changes your argument. Now it's no longer the size of the pool that moderates opinion, but the representativeness of the sample. So basically, a tiny state could conceivably dictate acceptable standards to the rest of us so long as their demographics match up right.

But this is all really beside the point, because the issue isn't the size or representativeness of the pool. The issue is accountability. And really, I don't see how moving curriculum decisions into the jungle of federal government promotes that. The Texas Board that did this move have pretty much one focus: education. Thus, if they make a mistake that fucks up education for everybody then it's easy to point to them and say "There are the guys responsible." and put pressure on Texas voters to do something about them. It's not like people from other states butting their heads into other states' business is not en vogue these days.

But what happens if we move it to the federal level? Suddenly, the curriculum is being set by some executive-appointed czar, or some task force appointed by some obscure congressional subcommittee. Therefore the people actually making the decisions (who might very well be cronies instead of experts) are effectively shielded from criticism and consequences of their actions. So when something happens that we don't like, what can we do? Sure, we can raise a little fuss at our nationally elected leaders to change things...but education is just one thing on their plate. They can put it on the back burner and pretty safely assume that they can ride some other issue to reelection.

Between changing the decision of a state school board and trying to change something in Washington DC, I think the former is more realistic than the latter any day of the week.

[Eulogy]

demographics are more likely to match up when the sample is larger. not a difficult or foreign concept to anyone, afaik.

as for accountability in the federal government, yeah, that'd be an issue. i'm not trying to pretend to have all the answers here. i just think it's clear that combining local school board politics with market based national textbook sales is a recipe for disaster. beyond that, most of this is pretty debatable, i think.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by duovamp

THIS QUESTION HAS NOT BEEN ANSWERED.

bAlLs DeEp In LeBrOn'S mAmA

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by jczeroman

Would you prefer I said "Marxism postulated" or "Marxism proposed" or "Marxism theorised?" I used "believed" to indicate that we are talking about something that is akin to a religious dogma of Marxism rather than an legitimate theory.

I just don't see how an idea is capable of the act of believing. That's all.

[null123]

my high school history textbook was A People's History of the United States

[ohnoitsbonnie]

I had a right wing teacher that would only give lectures on how wrong that book was

[cocksure]

miss, i am rather certain that books cannot possibly be "wrong"; is it not the author, professor zinn, who we should attribute these deficiencies to?