|
Also, school funding formulas vary by state. Here in New Jersey, statewide taxes pay for a huge portion of the costs in underperforming urban districts. The schools here are still terrible after decades of funding equal or better than that of suburban districts, though. OctaMurk posted:Also went to school in Massachusetts, the version we got was that the South panicked and went to war so they could own slaves even though Lincoln didn't intend to illegalize slavery, and Sherman was a hero who won the war and saved the nation and also pioneered all of modern warfare, and that Sherman's March to the Sea was in fact entirely and surprisingly humane in the history of total warfare. Not sure how much of that (about Sherman) is actually true but it seems true. This is pretty accurate, a little hyperbolic about Sherman, but generally reasonable. Lincoln's stated intentions were not to restrict slavery in the south, but to stop its expansion to the territories. Sherman was pretty rad, but you pretty much have to spend equal time fellating Grant to be an honest and evenhanded historian. Yes, the march to the sea was not nearly as bad as the popular imagination has it. Few deaths, but a tremendous amount of property being seized, destroyed, or set free from bondage, depending on the class of property in question.
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:43 |
|
|
On one hand, Georgia burned down. On the other kickin rad new capital for Georgia.Tevery Best posted:Out of curiosity, what are American standardized tests used for? Over here it's essentially a base for admission to a better school at the next level (including universities), which I think is better than having uneven standards across the board, with different institutions admitting based on different criteria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act TLDR: if your school does well in testing, it is a good school and should have funding. If your school does poorly in testing it is a bad school and should not have funding. The other one is the SAT/ACT which is used for college admissions and grants.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Libluini posted:How the hell does this work? What if the property is unused or so bad the tax payments are poo poo anyway? Do the teachers have to beg in the streets then? Also a number of Southern generals owned but Longstreet owned the most, for his abilities and also for his personal character. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Nov 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
KildarX posted:
Well that seems backwards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Well that seems backwards.  They're trying to break the back of the public school system in this country. Once your school's destroyed, you can go to a charter school.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:Out of curiosity, what are American standardized tests used for? Over here it's essentially a base for admission to a better school at the next level (including universities), which I think is better than having uneven standards across the board, with different institutions admitting based on different criteria. There are standard tests for University admission, like the SAT or ACT (and further exams for graduate admissions), and you send in those scores with your application to the school. Parts of those are garbage (which is why no school worth a drat cares about SAT writing scores), but you can always pay to retake them without serious loss, or get into school based on your record without taking one. But there's also federally mandated exam standards for people in lower education, which people must pass in order to progress through the years. Which would be fine, except that having too many students fail, for whatever reason, will result in losing state or federal funding for the public school. This means that teachers absolutely have to work on getting their kids to pass these exams because otherwise their jobs will be in danger, since the school's funding depends upon it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
KildarX posted:The big thing I don't think non-US citizens understand is that the United States are a bunch of united states, so states with generally low tax incomes with have generally poorer services, at a statewide level not to mention at the county level. I mean look at the education metrics of say Massachusetts vs West Virginia and you'll see a big divide. In our country it works the same way, we just use taxes to redeploy the money to where it is needed. My state, Niedersachsen, is actually one of the poorer German states, thanks to being rather sparsely populated and not having a lot of industry. Essentially the richer states like Bavaria end up paying for our schools.  In contrast, schools and stuff are still dealt with on a regional level in terms of function and organization, they just get most of their money (about 80%) from the federal government, which means living in a poor state doesn't translate into having poor schools. Just not as rich ones, since private money is also ending up in schools and rich states have richer donators, of course. The about 20% paid by the local state itself are also coming from a budget, not simply from a single tax. Because that's ridiculously uneven and we already have problems with rich people getting richer and poor people getting poorer, without pushing that divide even harder. P-Mack posted:Also, school funding formulas vary by state. Here in New Jersey, statewide taxes pay for a huge portion of the costs in underperforming urban districts. At least it's not as bad as paying everything out of property-taxes alone, which sounds still insane and unreal to me. HEY GAL posted:My mother literally did, but only once. She also took her last five dollars to a casino once and came back with twenty. Ugh, I think a scandal of this sort over here would end up toppling our education minister. Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Well that seems backwards. Well, it is backwards and stupid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Libluini posted:...we already have problems with rich people getting richer and poor people getting poorer, without pushing that divide even harder....
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:You seem to keep assuming that this isn't deliberate, in my opinion that is a mistake Even if it is done deliberately, it will slowly erode the USA from within and destroy it in a couple centuries (best case scenario), so I consider it still godawfully stupid. Our politicians at least pretend they're planning for the future. (Because they don't want to be tossed out on their ears, the crummy bastards.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:
A charter school is different from a private school how? I've heard the term thrown around but not really familiar with them since we don't got them up here. History side note, recently found out one of the roommates of the girl I've been seeing lately is an honest to god Stalin apologist. I mean I've heard people trying to justify some of the horrible poo poo the Soviets did, but I never thought I'd actually meet someone take it to "Stalin did nothing wrong". I don't think the dude is even Russian.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:A charter school is different from a private school how?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:A charter school is different from a private school how? I've heard the term thrown around but not really familiar with them since we don't got them up here. A charter school is run independently, like a private school, but is funded by the government. Since they can be run as for-profit institutions just like private schools can, they're a great racket.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:A charter school is run independently, like a private school, but is funded by the government. Since they can be run as for-profit institutions just like private schools can, they're a great racket. So despite getting government money I'd still have to pay to send my theoretical kids? Or is it more they can teach whatever crazy curriculum they want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
In Killer Angels, the author has Longstreet say something along the lines that what with the rifled musket and the Minie ball, attacking is no longer worth the effort (most of the time), since your losses will always be far more horrendous than they have ever been before. Did he actually hold that view?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Non-school chat:Tevery Best posted:Can anyone give me a rundown on how and why NATO and Warsaw Pact weapons development differed during the Cold War? That's a really broad question! Are you thinking of weapons development as a way of matching political and military goals, organising industry, applying doctrine by technical means, or measuring innovation? Is there any area of interest that you'd want to have covered in particular like different branches (army, navy, air force, 'strategic') or scales (components, systems, systems of systems)? I've been pining for some kind of gigantic but readable book where these kinds of things are nicely condensed, but alas nothing I've read so far comes close to covering the whole arms race. Like if you're interested in small arms development there are loads of things being said about for example the AK, how cheap it was, and 'deadly', or clever, but people will only be talking about *this* rifle and maybe *that* competitor or piece of equipment on the other side. Macro level engagement of the topic would have to go in-depth on procurement processes, the way R&D was being done in certain industries at certain times in certain places, the impact of spying and stealing and to what degree 'weapons' were copied or simply reflected best practises, lessons learned from regional conflicts and how superpowers reacted to actual use of their expensive toys, the spillover of high levels of spending on arms in the socio-economic and political spheres etc. So what'd you like to know specifically? Looking at my post history ITT we've discussed tank autoloaders a bit I guess, and a lot more in the TFR Cold War/Airpower thread of course.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:So despite getting government money I'd still have to pay to send my theoretical kids? No, they are free, so they're touted as a way to give poor students access to the kind of education quality a private school can provide. But since they can be run by anyone who gets enough investment to get the school off the ground, and the kind of state that wants to push privatization as a solution for everything is not going to legislate them properly, you get all sorts of problems. For example, some schools offer very barebones education (far below public school quality) because the board members spend all the money on education products that they have invested in, rather than on teachers. It'd be much harder to pull that kind of poo poo in a public school, where the board is elected; it'd also be tough in a public school where you have to actually get parents to pay tuition for their children. In other cases, the schools aren't run as a scam but are poo poo anyway, because the standards are lower or less-readily applied to charter schools than public schools. Basically, while sometimes they really can offer good, specific-topic educations (one of the best schools in Oklahoma for education in the sciences is a charter school), they're often just an amazing way for people to make money. e: Basically, think of it like this. They're public schools where the school board can just decide to steal all the money instead of spending it on students. corn in the bible fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Nov 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:In Killer Angels, the author has Longstreet say something along the lines that what with the rifled musket and the Minie ball, attacking is no longer worth the effort (most of the time), since your losses will always be far more horrendous than they have ever been before. Did he actually hold that view? Eh, he was kind of a mixed bag. Made some blunders, got other blunders thrown onto him, etc. He was more of a deliberate guy, not to the point of timidity like McClellan, but certainly not someone who would try to use cunning or speed as a strategic asset in the vein of Lee. He shone on the defensive but a lot of the ink about his lack of initiative (or what have you) stems from pissed-off lost-causers who think they totally would have saved the institution of slavery and gained independence from the Union had Longstreet rushed headlong into battle alongside Lee at Gettysburg or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Eh, he was kind of a mixed bag. Made some blunders, got other blunders thrown onto him, etc. He was more of a deliberate guy, not to the point of timidity like McClellan, but certainly not someone who would try to use cunning or speed as a strategic asset in the vein of Lee. He shone on the defensive but a lot of the ink about his lack of initiative (or what have you) stems from pissed-off lost-causers who think they totally would have saved the institution of slavery and gained independence from the Union had Longstreet rushed headlong into battle alongside Lee at Gettysburg or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
So what is up with all the incidents in which Robert E. Lee apparently loses his mind and has to be physically prevented from personally leading counterattacks on his horse? Did he just lose his mind? Think he was invincible? Wonder what various biographers have made of these incidents.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
AceRimmer posted:So what is up with all the incidents in which Robert E. Lee apparently loses his mind and has to be physically prevented from personally leading counterattacks on his horse? Edit: The reasons people do what they do are as much "cultural" as "pragmatic." I don't think many biographers have made much of it because it's not that strange in the period and especially earlier. The reason you think that the only reason a commander would attempt to lead his troops personally is if he were literally crazy is probably also due to your culture. (I'm not discounting intense emotions here, people aren't robots, and you can hope that your presence will make the final difference between victory and defeat even when that's objectively bullshit. But there's a difference between intensity of feelings and being insane.) HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Nov 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
Koesj posted:That's a really broad question! Are you thinking of weapons development as a way of matching political and military goals, organising industry, applying doctrine by technical means, or measuring innovation? Is there any area of interest that you'd want to have covered in particular like different branches (army, navy, air force, 'strategic') or scales (components, systems, systems of systems)? Basically I'm interested in how weapons development influenced land war doctrine - on lower levels especially - and the other way around. For example, I've heard it said that the development of the BMP really threw NATO planners for a loop, since it was a quite radical increase of mobile infantry fighting power, and this meant a lot of changes to how a unit operated. I'd like to know if that is true or not, whether or not there were other such or similar scenarios, and how they came to be. This is more or less the kind of thing I'd like to hear. I'm not exactly interested in other military branches all that much. Also, the Airpower thread is pretty great, but also daunting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:So despite getting government money I'd still have to pay to send my theoretical kids? Under the rules of most states, neither. They still have to get state accreditation and they have to be free, like any other public school. Charters are a lot like normal schools. The good ones are really good and the bad ones can be really bad. I went one of the latter, but I've interacted with plenty of charters that have their poo poo together. There's an enormous amount of disinformation about charter schools out there, both pro-charter and anti-charter. anyhow, back to milhist and poo poo. HEY GAL posted:Victorian male socialization is a hell of a drug. Same reason why that one dude who was bisected by a cannonball stayed where he was while getting shot at. John Sedgewick's "they couldn't hit an elephant at this distance" demise is another good example of this. Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Nov 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:See, that's why I said Grant vs. Longstreet is the great counterfactual fight. The two of them would have invented World War 1 or something. Maybe they did 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Victorian male socialization is a hell of a drug. Same reason why that one dude who was bisected by a cannonball stayed where he was while getting shot at. Technically, Polk didn't stand still...but he did decline to run away like Johnston and the others did, and instead chose a dignified walk down the mountain. THEN he got cut in half by a cannonball.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:Technically, Polk didn't stand still...but he did decline to run away like Johnston and the others did, and instead chose a dignified walk down the mountain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:also a larger target Well, one could say he chose a very radical form of weight-loss, didn't he?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
/\ I would say Sherman chose it more than Polk did HEY GAL posted:also a larger target Leonidas Pork.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
"Leatherbreeches" Dilger took the shot, or so I recall. Which I remember because hey, how often do you get to talk about a guy nicknamed "Leatherbreeches", anyway?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Leonidas Pork. come on, consider the gravity of the situation Edit: This thread sure loves its fat generals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I've encountered people who are mature adults and seem to hold onto these views because they choose to believe in this rascist nonsense, not because they are ignorant. KildarX posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:"Leatherbreeches" Dilger took the shot, or so I recall. Which I remember because hey, how often do you get to talk about a guy nicknamed "Leatherbreeches", anyway? Sounds German. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUSJA-vtg_s
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:e: Basically, think of it like this. They're public schools where the school board can just decide to steal all the money instead of spending it on students. They can also take advantage of the unfair funding mechanics by getting rid of kids who perform badly and forcing them into the public schools, thereby raising their average performance! Capitalism in action!
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
my dad posted:Sounds German. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Non-school chat: I recall in the 1980's a lot of writing on how bad NATO was in some areas - things like storing 50 million doller Jet fighters in 10,000 easily attacked hangers that would be destroyed in Spetnetz in minutes of the war starting, that the Unions would start sabotaging everything with direct orders from Moscow, that having Short range nuclear weapons in Europe would actually make any difference once WW3 started and how the Hind-D was the hight of amazing airpower. With the end of the cold war, was anything predicted actually accurate?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
School chat is good and all but if we keep talking charter schools we're going to end up summoning Jon huntsman/arkane to this thread and no one wants that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Anyone able to effortpost about staff colleges?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I've encountered people who are mature adults and seem to hold onto these views because they choose to believe in this rascist nonsense, not because they are ignorant. "German outlaw country music fans" may stand as an exercise for the reader. Edit: They are massive weeaboos for America over there. Now I'm the exotic one HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Nov 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
Some states and communities do have equalization mechanisms to redistribute school funding from richer areas to less wealthy school districts although I can't give you an idea of how common or rare such a policy is. But I know it's a thing at least.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:Basically I'm interested in how weapons development influenced land war doctrine - on lower levels especially - and the other way around. For example, I've heard it said that the development of the BMP really threw NATO planners for a loop, since it was a quite radical increase of mobile infantry fighting power, and this meant a lot of changes to how a unit operated. I'd like to know if that is true or not, whether or not there were other such or similar scenarios, and how they came to be. This is more or less the kind of thing I'd like to hear. I'm not exactly interested in other military branches all that much. Also, the Airpower thread is pretty great, but also daunting. I think the BMP was one of those whizz-bang things NATO saw and felt they had to emulate because they misinterpreted what it was meant to be. If you look at what the BMP-1 was, it was fairly obviously developed to get infantry through NBC wastelands. This is why the vehicle was designed to be fought from inside(almost no one fights mounted in IFVs any more for a really good reason). The BMP-1's armament is almost exclusively good against vehicles, with a recoilless rifle(with almost negligible HE performance) and an anti-tank guided missile. The gunports were part of that, too. Keep in mind that most Soviet motor rifle units were still equipped with BTRs which were a lot more conventional in nature. Personally, I don't think IFVs are actually that practical because nothing about their useful combat role involves them actually carrying infantry except in situations where NBC protection is needed, and the vehicles give up a ton of protection to be able to carry troops.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:43 |
|
|
Here in the socialist wonderland of Canada (at least in Toronto), the whole city is one school district, and I'm pretty sure the funding gets equalized, but there are also good schools and 8 hour per day prison schools. Even back in Moscow, there were schools that were the school for some subject or other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 02:10
|
|
