DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Cynthia on September 05, 2008, 01:30:14 AM
-
Intention--good.
Funding---questionable from the national end/gov.
Expectations for 2014 not so priceless.
Support.....The jury continues to be out on who is responsible for the very detailed regulations/rules/ and seemingly vast and powerful rejection of our school's efforts to educate the American child.
Spending and funding for the act were supposed to begin at the federal level. .... Reading First schools.
The actions taken to make the system better were sent to the state's administrator's desks for approval and authorization.
The jury is always going to be out on this issue, folks.
Someday, I hope to be able to outline and provide the line item details of those culprits involved in this "issue" of negativity against the schools...via this act.
There is still a question as to why the NCLB ACT was left up to the individual schools to provide impact to the average child's education.
No one has clearly won this fight on the debate board. I am not here to say that I was wrong, nor was I completely right in my assessment of the ACT....but there is a reason why many states in our nation have had to ask permission to claim success or AYP accuracy. The NCLB ACT is still at the bottom line of this.
I realize that the ACT itself was set up to help children thrive. But the government is one powerful variable in all of this. There has to be more to the story than blaming the individual states...there JUST HAS TO BE. With all due respect to my fellow posters on this board, someday I will find out more about this act and why we had to struggle to teach. Too many children have been left behind for these past five years or more. Why. Is it really the fault of the individual states? I wonder. I really have to wonder. But, I agree that the INTENTION of the act was a good thing and always will be. My final point on the matter.
Nite.
-
Spending and funding for the act were supposed to begin at the federal level. .... Reading First schools.
It was over $13B last year, wasn't it?
-
Spending and funding for the act were supposed to begin at the federal level. .... Reading First schools.
It was over $13B last year, wasn't it?
It was supposed to be used to leave no child behind. I still feel that there are issues within the very act itself with regard to how the schools are punished or rewarded. Just today we had a meeting, and I was told that the one reason why the baseline NCLB ACT hasn't worked is due to the lack of a bell curve. NOt ALL children can read at the same level at the same rate, with the same fluency, accuracy etc. Not possible. Yet, by 2014 the schools must see to it that all children, unless they are classified as MR will and must read at grade level. Apparently, I was told today that that is why the act is flawed. So, why? Why did this act, which I was also told was drafted by an attorney, not even an educator.....come out as our Bible?
I still believe that the intention is a good thing, however. So, after some of these unrealistic elements within the very premise of the act are resolved, I have hope that we shall see a surge of success rates. The act was not developed with children's varying developmental needs in mind. Period.
Good year this school term...already our local school has found a way to bring back all the subject areas except for music. That's a great thing. Kuddos to the leaders here on our local site.
-
Just today we had a meeting, and I was told that the one reason why the baseline NCLB ACT hasn't worked is due to the lack of a bell curve. NOt ALL children can read at the same level at the same rate, with the same fluency, accuracy etc. Not possible.
That's why the act allows states to setup multiple levels of achievement in each subject area.
-
Just today we had a meeting, and I was told that the one reason why the baseline NCLB ACT hasn't worked is due to the lack of a bell curve. NOt ALL children can read at the same level at the same rate, with the same fluency, accuracy etc. Not possible.
That's why the act allows states to setup multiple levels of achievement in each subject area.
I would love to see the state that has setup such multiple levels of achievement, and consequently shown more that 75% success rate in the area of having met AYP overall. From what I hear, the act itself has set up an unreal expectation. That's is what needs improved, apparently. I hope for that...because I do believe in the actual act, overall.
-
I would love to see the state that has setup such multiple levels of achievement, and consequently shown more that 75% success rate in the area of having met AYP overall.
I think I saw that Idaho had set five levels instead of the federally mandated minimum of three.
From what I hear, the act itself has set up an unreal expectation. That's is what needs improved, apparently. I hope for that...because I do believe in the actual act, overall.
Yeah, it's unreal that it sets no goals - it leaves those totally up to the state. Which means that a student might be doing fine in Texas, but that same student might not make the grade in, say, Utah. Totally unreal.
-
http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/D90C064A-C788-466C-992F-DD588C073B25/0/ESEAMyths.pdf (http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/D90C064A-C788-466C-992F-DD588C073B25/0/ESEAMyths.pdf)
-
I would love to see the state that has setup such multiple levels of achievement, and consequently shown more that 75% success rate in the area of having met AYP overall.
I think I saw that Idaho had set five levels instead of the federally mandated minimum of three.
From what I hear, the act itself has set up an unreal expectation. That's is what needs improved, apparently. I hope for that...because I do believe in the actual act, overall.
Yeah, it's unreal that it sets no goals - it leaves those totally up to the state. Which means that a student might be doing fine in Texas, but that same student might not make the grade in, say, Utah. Totally unreal.
Ami, you know we have talked about this before. I am not saying that the NCLB act is a bad thing. I am trying to understand why the act failed to see that children can not possible all hit the same mark at the same time. That's all I am concerned about. If the act had been organized and well designed years ago, the success stories would be googled so darn fast by now. My point is that there are issues in the act. Those politicians involved know that this act isn't perfect. You guys know it. I am no longer here to argue the whole apple as rotten. I am here to find say that indeed, there are issues that have caused children to fall behind....in all its irony....
The NCLB has to be revisited.
I am not mooning it any longer. ;)
-
I am trying to understand why the act failed to see that children can not possible all hit the same mark at the same time.
I think it DID foresee that problem. That's why it leaves the decisions about what level needs to be met and how many levels to set up for each grade up the each individual state.
-
I am trying to understand why the act failed to see that children can not possible all hit the same mark at the same time.
I think it DID foresee that problem. That's why it leaves the decisions about what level needs to be met and how many levels to set up for each grade up the each individual state.
Then, as I've said, Ami, I would have expected more than a couple of states to show success. I would have expected all fifty states to be on their way to stage two of any program--revision of the minor details that don't seem to be working. But, in fact, there are too many major issues to be ironed out. The act needs to be revamped, overhauled AND, has become a major point in both presidential camps. That shouldn't be if the act had been such a jewel and spot on law from the getgo.
-
The bottom line is this, Ami.
You know I agree with the act overall. I do. I see it's potential for great change in this nation's public schools.
But, hon....there are issues within which need a looksee.
I would love to see the act overhauled to the point where there are more success stories, than complaints from so many. As a teacher, I can say that something isn't right. The act isnt' perfect, especially having been drafted by an attorney and not educators. :(
So, hey....we are on the same page, but I do believe that there are a few fine points that must be resolved in order to make this the best public school system in the world.
I have told folks here of my own experiences.....after 33 years in the schools, I have never seen such a reverse in educating the child. If that's the fault of the state, I will concur. I agree.
But, there are areas within the NCLB act which need to be revisited and changed overall. I am sure there will be more success stories when such wrinkles are ironed out.
I am happy with the state of the 'intent' of the act. So, I am no longer arguing on my platform against the act itself. That's why I believe that in time, things will work out. I was an Obama supporter based on this issue alone.
I must vote my heart when it comes to abortion.
Cindy
-
That shouldn't be if the act had been such a jewel and spot on law from the getgo.
That would be if the state level administrators are more interested in CYA than in getting their job done.
As I said, the problem with the act is not that it mandates too much from the above, but rather that it mandates too little from above.
-
That shouldn't be if the act had been such a jewel and spot on law from the getgo.
That would be if the state level administrators are more interested in CYA than in getting their job done.
As I said, the problem with the act is not that it mandates too much from the above, but rather that it mandates too little from above.
I understand that, Ami. I agree with you. But, what I am hearing from those who have researched in depth more than I , is that all children must reach a certain goal (reading on grade level by a specific year). There are problems within the original act and apparently this unrealistic expectation is one of them. While I am happy with the way the local areas around the country are dealing with the mandates from the nclb act, I am still concerned that the expectations are unrealistic. There is no bell curve. The bell curve was not 'invented' by an attorney once upon a long ago time. The bell curve is part of reality in education. We are always going to give our best to children at their developmental level. That's a given from the viewpoint in which I work. But, if the law had been written with more insight into how children learn, I do believe we wouldn't have had these discussions. NCLB would not have been an issue in the presidential race, etc etc, etc. I do agree that the individual states must take responsibility for implementation, but I question why the "buzz" for so many years over the law itself. I will always want to understand why. I plan to keep my mind open with regard to the intent and progress of the nclb act. I was dead set against it becasue of what we have had to experience on the ground level. But, now I have hope that something within the act itself will shift. There's nothing wrong with fine tuning something that has a promise for children. I continue to listen to those in the field who know more about this. I will continue to report back based on their knowledge. Googling doesn't cut it for me. But, I appreciate your desire to support the law, Ami. I do.
I am not agruing with the intent of the law. Mandates are fine. BUt, reason is lost in the original act. I just learned a bit more on Friday. So, my quest continues. :)
-
But, what I am hearing from those who have researched in depth more than I , is that all children must reach a certain goal (reading on grade level by a specific year).
And that goal is set by each state. Again, the goal itself is NOT set in the act.
-
But, what I am hearing from those who have researched in depth more than I , is that all children must reach a certain goal (reading on grade level by a specific year).
And that goal is set by each state. Again, the goal itself is NOT set in the act.
The act was designed by Kennedy. The act was encouraged by Bush....and he makes no bones about joining Kennedy on this. My point? I am here to say that I DO NOT BLAME BUSH. I used to. I am not doing that now.
However, the act does state that ALL children must read at grade level by 2014. ALL! no matter who, what circumstances etc. That IS NOT the job or goal of the state, Ami. No. you're wrong there.
I have no problem with setting goals. I have no problem with mandates. I do have a problem with the act in that it requires all children to hit a grade level mark in reading with little regard to developmental variables.
-
But, what I am hearing from those who have researched in depth more than I , is that all children must reach a certain goal (reading on grade level by a specific year).
And that goal is set by each state. Again, the goal itself is NOT set in the act.
The act was designed by Kennedy. The act was encouraged by Bush....and he makes no bones about joining Kennedy on this. My point? I am here to say that I DO NOT BLAME BUSH. I used to. I am not doing that now.
However, the act does state that ALL children must read at grade level by 2014. ALL! no matter who, what circumstances etc. That IS NOT the job or goal of the state, Ami. No. you're wrong there.
I have no problem with setting goals. I have no problem with mandates. I do have a problem with the act in that it requires all children to hit a grade level mark in reading with little regard to developmental variables.
Can you give us an example of what a reasonable goal would be?
Don't bother with a complete picture , just give a slice by giveing one resonable goal on one subject.
-
However, the act does state that ALL children must read at grade level by 2014. ALL! no matter who, what circumstances etc. That IS NOT the job or goal of the state, Ami. No. you're wrong there.
The act states that all children must read at a state determined grade level by 2014. Again, the act leaves the job of determining what that level is to the state. Would you like me to provide the text of it again?
-
However, the act does state that ALL children must read at grade level by 2014. ALL! no matter who, what circumstances etc. That IS NOT the job or goal of the state, Ami. No. you're wrong there.
The act states that all children must read at a state determined grade level by 2014. Again, the act leaves the job of determining what that level is to the state. Would you like me to provide the text of it again?
Ok, I"ll look into this again, Ami. But, you are the ONLY one who seems to 'know' ....the ONLY one ....in a group of many that the state THE STATE is responsible for such determination. If you are correct, that's great. You will be the man of the hour. I respect you, you know that, hon. I am on the hunt for truth...so...........I'll get back to you , friend. ;)
BTW, The NCLB act that I READ states clearly that all children are expected and required to read AT GRADE LEVEL by a certain year. What part of that is not clear? But, again, I will look into the act/law ---if I have to email those in government myself. I have heard too many on the other side of YOUR FENCE, with all due respect....lay out the truth when it comes to the expectations from the law.
The bottom line is....I have attended meeting after meeting for four years now. No one..NO ONE in the adminstration have EVER stated that 'Hey, we here in our state of NM are responsible for adjusting the law and making the grade. My goodness....why should I believe that YOU know, Ami.
Again, I have only heard quite the opposite from many educators from the top down. My goodness, why do I have to contact Pres. Bush himself ...LOL
But, if I have to, I will show you that there are issues with this law/act.
I have a feeling, with all due respect, that you are capable (since you have such a high IQ) of putting forth a question/challenge our way....but I will not be convinced, hon. Not until I hear it from those who know best.
This debate is on and not to be decided based on your final answer...again, You know I adore you and I trust you...but, hon...there are problems within this act. I will prove those glitches to you eventually.
Cindy
-
The state's goals are no different from the federal government's goals. Proficiency is still considered "on grade level". Those goals you speak of, Ami, are indeed aligned with the grade of a B+, if you will.
The feds THE NCLB maintains that the each state sets a proficiency goal; but the proficiency goals on average no different from the old scoring of a B+...AND that 'level' of proficiency set by the state (or expected by the feds) is still mandated for ALL CHILDREN, no matter the category. A child can belong to five categories at one time; Hispanic/special ed/free and reduced lunch/ELL....and that child is counted by the state FIVE TIMES. It only takes .5 child to place a school on NOT MEETING AYP. That's crazy.
Ok, here's what I have googled...in spite of the fact that I said I would not google for this debate. I am not finished yet, Ami. There will be more, dear friend. We applied for a grant two years ago and in the process we are using a research based reading program in our school. OK, THAT'S FANTASTIC, btw. It works.
The fact that the NCLB requires that TITLE 1 schools such as we follow regulations to improve all children's education is a good thing. I have no issue with that. However, the way the child is counted as having met the requirements is not realistically feasible. We can be HQ AND experienced beyond our years, but we are not miracle workers. There is a mandate from the NCLB act which insists that all children meet a particular level of achievement by 2014. That is not possilbe. Why can't any average intelligent human being see that? Children can not possibly meet a proficient level (equal to a B+) if they are not mentally capable. That's my argument. The states set up such a criteria...but that criteria is proficiency.....i.e. B+ or A.....we grade according to SBPR with an Advanced grade....a Proficient grade ...a Nearing proficient grade and finally an Emerging grade these days. There are no more letter grades on the docket. The rubric for such an assessment also varies according to the subject area.
ALL FOR ONE....it isn't possible, Ami.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) covers all states, school districts, and schools that accept Title 1 federal grants. Title 1 grants provide funding for remedial education programs for poor and disadvantaged children in public schools, and in some private programs. NCLB applies differently to Title 1 schools than to schools that do not receive Title 1 grants. However, one way or another, this law covers all public schools in all states.
NCLB emphasizes accountability and teaching methods that work.
A large focus of this law is on reading achievement. Only 32% of fourth graders are proficient readers who read at a fourth grade level.[1]
Schools that receive Title 1 funds may apply for Reading First grants to pay for classroom-reading instruction for grades K-3. These Reading First grants are only available for reading programs that are proven successful based on independent research.
Reading First grants will fund classroom-reading instruction for 90-minute blocks, 5 days a week. Schools may use part of this money to train K-3 teachers in these research-based methods. They may also use a portion of this money to train K-12 special education teachers.
Qualifications of Teachers and Paraprofessionals
This law raises the requirements for teachers. Because all states have accepted Title 1 funds, this quality standard applies to all public school teachers in all states.
Highly-Qualified Teachers
Any new teacher, or any teacher working in a Title 1 program, must meet the criteria for being "highly qualified." That means they hold at least a bachelors degree and have passed a state test of subject knowledge.
Elementary school teachers must demonstrate knowledge of teaching math and reading. Teachers in higher grades must demonstrate knowledge of the subject they teach, or have majored in that subject. Other teachers had until 2005-2006 to obtain at least a bachelor's degree, licensure and or certification.[2]
Teachers with license and certification waivers, even if for an emergency basis, will not meet this standard.
New Standards for Paraprofessionals
New paraprofessionals who assist in Title 1 programs must have completed two years of college or pass a test. The test will assess their ability to support teachers in reading, writing and math instruction. Paraprofessionals already employed had until 2006 to meet these requirements.[3]
Parents' Right to Know Teacher Qualifications
If your child attends a Title 1 school, you are entitled to information about your child's teacher. You are entitled to know whether the teacher is certified and qualified to teach the particular subject and grade. You are entitled to information about the teacher's college degree and major.
If your child receives any services from a paraprofessional, the school is required to provide you with information about the paraprofessional's qualifications.[4]
Proficiency Testing of Children
By the 2013-2014 school year, NCLB requires that all children will be at the proficient level on state testing. To help states and districts accomplish this, NCLB gives states more flexibility in combining federal grants and expenditures.
States and districts may use federal money for research-based programs that are proven effective.
NCLB contains various deadlines for compliance.
School & School District Report Cards
Beginning in the fall of 2002, your district must report the scores for statewide testing to parents. This is the district or school's report card. Your district will report scores for each school as a whole.
The scores will also be broken out into four subgroups: children with disabilities, limited English proficiency, racial minorities and children from low-income families. This information will tell you if your school has been successful in teaching all groups of children. You will be able to compare the report card from your child's school to the report cards from other schools in your district and state.
Annual Testing
Beginning in 2005, your school must test all children in grades 3-8 every year in math and reading. By Fall, 2007, science assessments were required.
These test scores determine if your school is making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) towards the goal of proficiency for all children by the 2013-2014 deadline. Proficiency means the child is performing at average grade level.[5] All subgroups of children, as well as the school as a whole, must meet the AYP goal or the school will fail.
http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/nclb.parent.guide.heath.htm (http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/nclb.parent.guide.heath.htm)
-
The feds THE NCLB maintains that the each state sets a proficiency goal; but the proficiency goals on average no different from the old scoring of a B+...AND that 'level' of proficiency set by the state (or expected by the feds) is still mandated for ALL CHILDREN, no matter the category.
First, the definition in the act for "all" is 95%, not 100%. Second, there is an exemption - the state can setup an "alternate" proficiency goal for children with disabilities.
not less than 95 percent of each group of students described in subparagraph (C)(v) who are enrolled in the school are required to take the assessments, consistent with paragraph (3)(C)(xi) and with accommodations, guidelines, and alternative assessments provided in the same manner as those provided under section 612(a)(17)(A) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and paragraph (3), on which adequate yearly progress is based
-
The title "No child left behind" is basically absurd.
There are always children who are born without any learning abilities whatever. A very small percentage, but nonetheless, there will always be microcephalics and others that are essentially untrainable and unteachable.
-
The feds THE NCLB maintains that the each state sets a proficiency goal; but the proficiency goals on average no different from the old scoring of a B+...AND that 'level' of proficiency set by the state (or expected by the feds) is still mandated for ALL CHILDREN, no matter the category.
First, the definition in the act for "all" is 95%, not 100%. Second, there is an exemption - the state can setup an "alternate" proficiency goal for children with disabilities.
not less than 95 percent of each group of students described in subparagraph (C)(v) who are enrolled in the school are required to take the assessments, consistent with paragraph (3)(C)(xi) and with accommodations, guidelines, and alternative assessments provided in the same manner as those provided under section 612(a)(17)(A) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and paragraph (3), on which adequate yearly progress is based
The goal is still 100% of ALL children will improve in reading and math by 3rd grade level by 2014. Sure, the participation rate is 95%, but that too has gone through reform.
95 percent test participation: NCLB initially required that 95 percent of a school's total students and of each subgroup of students pass the test used in determining AYP. Under a policy change announced in March 2004, states could average participation rates over a three-year period. In addition, students who are unable to take the test during the testing and make-up windows because of a significant medical emergency would not count against the school’s participation rate.
In addition, a state could use data from the previous year or two to average the participation rate data for a school and/or subgroup. If this two- or three-year average met or exceeded 95 percent, the school would still meet the AYP requirement. (The reason this is important is that some schools had been labeled as failing when only one or two students in a subgroup were absent.)
In order to make "adequate yearly progress" (AYP), schools must demonstrate that at least 95 percent of all students participated in the assessment. This requirement must be met for all students in a school and subgroups of those students (including ethnicity, poverty, disability, or English language proficiency, if the subgroup has sufficient numbers of students).
Ami, I agree with the premise of this act. I am not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but there are and have been so many issues with this law that children have been left behind more so than any time before. Special ed. students are required to spend the first year or two in a regular education classroom- called the least restrictive environment. These students do not deserve to be manipulated by the government. But the law states that If a student belongs to all of those subgroups, and said student fails the test, that student is counted for each subgroup category. There have been schools under this law that have not made AYP because of .5 kid count. ! believe it or not. The NCLB act has caused so many problems during the past 6 years, that it's ridiculous. Children and teachers have had to jump through reforming hoops and now we are in a spin. Why? Because the act/law was so very flawed from the beginning. I have tried to speak to that point all along. There are still problems within the act that need to be addressed.
The No Child Left Behind Act implements President Bush's unequivocal commitment to ensuring that every child can read by the third grade. To accomplish this goal, the new Reading First initiative will significantly increase the Federal investment in scientifically based reading instruction programs in the early grades. One major benefit of this approach will be reduced identification of children for special education services due to a lack of appropriate reading instruction in their early years.
And believe me they have increased the investment for scientfically based reading instructions programs. That has always been a plus, as far as I am concerned. I am not against the bottom line intent of the law. There have been many positive changes in the nclb act. But there have also been unrealistic mandates. Punitive actions have had to be reformed. Unfortunately in the process time was wasted and good teachers left the systme. That's a shame. Not to mention the children and the hoops they have had to endure. Lack of quality education. I believe in the NEA's approach. The feds need to get involved with the schools and districts directly...not sit back and mandate...and then blame the states as you have done.
With all due respect. I am a liberal when it comes to edcation, then. I don't want to be labled such, but if I agree with a few ideals that come from the NEA, then I suppose I am subject to sitting in their court. The original NCLB ACT was not designed well. Time has been wasted. :(
Many things are changing in the law. I am grateful for that. The law itself has experienced the following changes. http://www.nea.org/esea/rules-changes.html (http://www.nea.org/esea/rules-changes.html)
-
The goal is still 100% of ALL children will improve in reading and math by 3rd grade level by 2014.
That may be the "goal", but this law defines "all" as 95%. And that 95% excludes those with learning disabilities.
-
The goal is still 100% of ALL children will improve in reading and math by 3rd grade level by 2014.
That may be the "goal", but this law defines "all" as 95%. And that 95% excludes those with learning disabilities.
There were disagree. I am saying that the expectations is 100% according to the information I have received. 95% participation rate.
The point for me here is that the original law had no bell curve. The mandates were extreme. Slowly we have seen reform. So, I'll leave it at that.
The future might be brighter, but the law was too extreme, unfair, punitive when it should not have been. That has always been my point, and now that we are 'reading' that change and reform is more par for the course than the original course, I say that's a shame.
But, the law was not well planned out by the Bush administration, nor was the Iraqi war. BUt as for the latter, OTOH, Clinton didn't help in that arena one bit by doing away with a big chunk of the military.
-
OTOH, Clinton didn't help in that arena one bit by doing away with a big chunk of the military.
The US did not need any more military than it had to do a good job in Afghanistan.
There was no need to invade Iraq, nor was there a need to have the military to do it.
In the history of this country one thing is clear: if we give them an army, they will give us a war.
The US is one of the most warlike entities that has ever existed. It has bases in places where none will ever be needed.
Warmongering is like alcoholism, and the solution is similar: stay off the sauce, stay of the arms.
-
The goal is still 100% of ALL children will improve in reading and math by 3rd grade level by 2014.
That may be the "goal", but this law defines "all" as 95%. And that 95% excludes those with learning disabilities.
"And that 95% excludes those with learning disabilities."
But that 95% does not exclude children who have undefined or undiagnosed learning disabilities. Because of the nclb act, the special education dept has limit the number of students it can place in program, as opposed to pre NCLB.
So, many poor, ELL, disadvantaged children are at a "disadvantage"....and yet they are counted at part of the 100% on grade level by 2014 group.
There are hidden issues that only we see in the classroom, but they are directly related to the original act. NOw, if the NEA can adjust these issues, as I have read this morning more about such details, then super! But, again, that wasn't the case when the law began. I like the new law. A LOT! So, I am going to probably be praising its tune more so than bashing it.
We shall see. For now, Paradigm shifts are on the horizon. Thank goodness for the children.
-
OTOH, Clinton didn't help in that arena one bit by doing away with a big chunk of the military.
The US did not need any more military than it had to do a good job in Afghanistan.
There was no need to invade Iraq, nor was there a need to have the military to do it.
In the history of this country one thing is clear: if we give them an army, they will give us a war.
The US is one of the most warlike entities that has ever existed. It has bases in places where none will ever be needed.
Warmongering is like alcoholism, and the solution is similar: stay off the sauce, stay of the arms.
But, XO, the very reason we weren't well prepared to head into two countries with full force and a way to accomplish a mission was due to the lack of numbers. We had to use the NG ...which is pathetic. Mind you, I do agree that we should not have invaded Iraq as we did...let's get that clear. But, what if we had had to fight Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan..etc....Why not have a strong military to begin with. ..
Clinton cut the military during his stay in office, did he not?
-
ONE
MORE
TIME.
The US did not NEED to invade Iraq. It had all it needed to catch and get rid of Osama in Afghanistan, but Rummy was too incompetent to do this and all the Juniorbushies were obsessed with invading Iraq.
We should have had so few troops and munitions that Iraq would have been an IMPOSSIBILITY. The commanders would have told Juniorbush that an invasion would have been a suicidal defeat. Then he'd have had to go beat up on his inflatable Saddam doll in the Lincoln bedroom. That would have been a GOOD thing.
Give them an army, they give us a war. Did we need to invade Santo Domingo in 1964? No. Did we need troops in Beirut? No. Did we need to invade Vietnam? Hell, no. Did we need to invade Grenada? Panama? No and no.
Ever since the idiot Dulles brothers, the US has sought to solve problems with guns. This has resulted in lots of dead and maimed Americans, and the expense has prevented us from taking care of our own people.
Even now, listen to McCain blather about how we still can't give adequate health care because we are too poor, but does he even suggest that taxes be raised to pay for the huge amount that Iraq has cost us?
Here is his secret plan. Borrow more from the Chinese, squander it in Iraq, with Halliburton and Blackhawk and those other mercenary companies making even more money off it.
It's like alcoholism. What the US needs is a ten point program.
We can beat Canada, we can beat Mexico, and all our other borders are huge expanses of ocean. Easily defended, even compared to Sweden and Switzerland.
-
ONE
MORE
TIME.
The US did not NEED to invade Iraq. It had all it needed to catch and get rid of Osama in Afghanistan, but Rummy was too incompetent to do this and all the Juniorbushies were obsessed with invading Iraq.
We should have had so few troops that Iraq would have been an IMPOSSIBILITY.
Give them an army, they give us a war. Did we need to invade Santo Domingo in 1964? No. Did we need troops in Beirut? No. Did we need to invade Vietnam? Hell, no. Did we need to invade Grenada? Panama? No and no.
Ever since the idiot Dulles brothers, the US has sought to solve problems with guns. This has resulted in lots of dead and maimed Americans, and the expense has prevented us from taking care of our own people.
Even now, listen to McCain blather about how we still can't give adequate healthcare because we are too poor, but does he even suggest that taxes be raised to pay for the huge amount that Iraq has cost us?
It's like alcoholism. What the US needs is a ten point program.
Mind you, I do agree that we should not have invaded Iraq as we did...let's get that clear. But, what if we had had to fight Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan..etc....Why not have a strong military to begin with. ..My gosh, Xavier, you are in support of having a weak military in such a state of the world today?
Not wise, imo. No.
-
Iran and Iraq were ZERO threat to Americans in America. How the hell is Iran going to attack the US in North America? It isn;t.
As for Israel, that IS NOT OUR PROBLEM, any more than who runs Kashmir or Sri Kanka is not our proble,m. Other than diplomacy, we need to stay out of that one and treat both sides the same.
And yes! we need LESS military. Too much, and we get more wars.
Why do you think Sweden and Switzerland don;t run about invading other countries for the past 400 years?
Because they lack the stuff to do it with.
The US should have stayed the eff OUT of WWi. Had they done that, there would have been no Hitler and no WWII.
Diplomacy could have prevented Korea. Vietnam was a huge mistake, made possible by too many weapons and assholes like LeMay and the Dulleses a-spoiing for a fight.
This crap about how we have to be able to flatten any other nation on the planet is just a lot pf propaganda to make big bucks for the military industrial complex.
We need to ditch them, and soon.
-
Iran and Iraq were ZERO threat to Americans in America. How the hell is Iran going to attack the US in North America? It isn;t.
As for Israel, that IS NOT OUR PROBLEM, any more than who runs Kashmir or Sri Kanka is not our proble,m. Other than diplomacy, we need to stay out of that one and treat both sides the same.
And yes! we need LESS military. Too much, and we get more wars.
Why do you think Sweden and Switzerland don;t run about invading other countries for the past 400 years?
Because they lack the stuff to do it with.
The US should have stayed the eff OUT of WWi. Had they done that, there would have been no Hitler and no WWII.
Diplomacy could have prevented Korea. Vietnam was a huge mistake, made possible by too many weapons and assholes like LeMay and the Dulleses a-spoiing for a fight.
This crap about how we have to be able to flatten any other nation on the planet is just a lot pf propaganda to make big bucks for the military industrial complex.
We need to ditch them, and soon.
Well, Xavier, we disagree on these points. We are not anywhere near Sweden or Suisse, first of all. Of course they don't have an army. Switzerland is the soft spot of the nations'brain since the beginning of time ;).
You really think that we should not have entered WW1? Hmmm, and that if we hadn't Hitler would not have taken over Germany and millions of Jews would be alive today?? ok , well, you must know more about the history of war than I.
I know you know mroe about history, but common sense is not in your thread of thinking, with all due respect, X0.
We can not go unprotected in this world today...because too many nations really do not like us. Iran doesn't like America....you think they wouldn't step right into a conflict against us? Think again. Maybe not the way it is now, but I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them. Conflict is conflict. War isn't popular. But, it can be an ugly reality. I maintain that we should not have invaded Iraq. I agree with you hold heartedly there.....It's the "other guy" we need to be very careful that we do not take for granted. The fact that war has been a part of life for too long ( I admit)....doesn't mean that we should throw away the guns and fight with fists.
Would we drive a car without seatbelts because we know our driving record is spotless? No. It's the OTHER GUY who's record aint so spotless and we are dead in the impact.
Safety and protection must be a part of all life....sadly, war has been a part of that. Al Pacino...."They just pull me right back in". That is reality.
-
There were disagree. I am saying that the expectations is 100% according to the information I have received. 95% participation rate.
If only 95% are "participating" then you cannot have 100%. Even if they want 100% of kids to meet the goals, each state is only required to have 95% meet them.
As I said, the law only requires 95% of the kids (outside of those with disabilities) to meet the goals set by the state. This gives plenty of "wiggle room" for those not diagnosed with disabilities.
-
So, many poor, ELL, disadvantaged children are at a "disadvantage"....and yet they are counted at part of the 100% on grade level by 2014 group.
Again, the law only requires 95% to meet grade level by 2014. And the state sets a different "grade level" for those with disabilities.
-
Any 100% figure for anything is unattainable, period.
Hardly anything is ever 100%
Even Ivory soap was supposed to be 99.44% pure. Of course, it isn't. The soap part may be nearly pure soap, but the ads concealed the "undiscosed ingredient, namely, air.
That is why it floats. It has air whipped into it, so you are buying what looks like a larger bar of soap with air whipped into it.
Normally soap is heavier than water, and sinks.
-
The last time that the USA had less than the strongest military in the world , was shortly before WWII.
At that time our military strength was less than top ten , and tyrants who wanted to carry on war in Europe and Asia could make their plans without worrying about US strength.
I don't see how weakness serves peace , as long as we are so strong we can work on trying to be very responsible with that strength and the world has a policeman.
When we return to the days of keeping only small strength on hand , with small stocks and small professional corps, we give up the influence on decisions of war made in foreign governments and NGO warfighters.
I think WWIII hasn't really happend yet , partly because we were working to prevent it. In exactly the way we were not working to prevent WWII.
-
I think WWIII hasn't really happend yet , partly because we were working to prevent it. In exactly the way we were not working to prevent WWII.
===========================
Yeah, sure. Who do you suppose we were supposed to fight it with?
I the history of this country, everytime they have armed for a war, we have had one. Vietnam is a prime example. There was no reason whatever to get involved there.
Dwight Eisenhower said "No land wars in Asia", and our worst mistakes were in getting involved land wars in Asia. Iraq is another prime example of war for war's sake.
-
Communism had to be resisted , keeping this resistance below the level of all out war was a decision made over and over by American and Soviet administrations.
I once read that Greek warriors would sometimes face off holding their heavy sheilds and fight only a little for a long time , useing insults instead of action to carry the audience, after a while one of them would make a mistake that the other could exploit or one of them would tire from just danceing about in all that armor , then the tired one would yeild and not need to die in the duel.
There was no choice but to resist Communism , the details in which the means and strategy of this resistance was done was what choice was offered.