|
Tatum Girlparts posted:So what should be done about K-12 problems? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbott_district See this? Do this everywhere, instead of just Vermont and New Jersey.
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 02:53 |
|
|
So was this debate worth watching? I got the impression from the first one that Bernie treated it more like a stump speech than a debate, but it seemed like neither he nor Clinton were a clear winner to me. I've just gotten burned out on the election cycle and probably need to purge for a month before I care again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
MeatwadIsGod posted:So was this debate worth watching? I got the impression from the first one that Bernie treated it more like a stump speech than a debate, but it seemed like neither he nor Clinton were a clear winner to me. I've just gotten burned out on the election cycle and probably need to purge for a month before I care again. I enjoyed it as a rational discussion of policy, but you aren't missing anything if you skip it and purge for a month. It's not even 2016 yet, save your strength.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbott_district So what's your plan to have democratically controlled state legislatures in all 50 states to implement a plan like this nationally
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
rscott posted:So what's your plan to have democratically controlled state legislatures in all 50 states to implement a plan like this nationally It actually gets implemented by the courts. At least it did in those two states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It actually gets implemented by the courts. At least it did in those two states. according to the first citation in that wikipedia article, the courts made their Abbott v. Burke decision based on an amendment to the state constitution, which was made by a democratically controlled state legislature edit: ok it was in 1875 i just realized. no idea which party controlled the jersey state legislature in 1875. this impacts the validity of my point BUT if your state constitution doesn't have something implying everybody deserves an equal education you're going to need a state legislature that's not just democratic in party affiliation but also isn't beholden to the 'gently caress you got mine' rich to give the courts the texts they need to implement this reform oh and the constituency of the political groups impacts the political opinions of the old people in robes who get to determine how we live and die, even in states where said berobed olds aren't elected, insanely here's the citation link http://blog.nj.com/ledgerarchives/2011/05/the_history_of_abbott_v_burke.html oystertoadfish has issued a correction as of 22:21 on Nov 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:according to the first citation in that wikipedia article, the courts made their Abbott v. Burke decision based on an amendment to the state constitution, which was made by a democratically controlled state legislature The state constitution in effect in New Jersey when the ruling was made was created in 1947, and is not simply an amended version of what was the constitution in 1875. No idea what that article chose to reference that one, rather than the constitution of 1947 Anyway a properly friendly US supreme court could probably put together a ruling on the basis of the 14th amendment implying equal education or something like that. It would probably involve some state legislature passing a law that does the same thing, that law being challenged, and that case being appealed up to the national supremes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Anyway a properly friendly US supreme court could probably put together a ruling on the basis of the 14th amendment implying equal education or something like that. It would probably involve some state legislature passing a law that does the same thing, that law being challenged, and that case being appealed up to the national supremes. ok this is a real theoretically achievable roadmap and i hope it happens which means i hope that a couple specific old people who wear black robes to work die or are afflicted so seriously by senility or debility that they are forced to retire. but not yet, they have to wait until after the swearing in of a democratic president i love politics i really do
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Wouldn't San Antonio Independent School District Vs. Rodriguez need to be overturned for a ruling based on the 14th amendment be found? Doesn't seem particularly likely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
rscott posted:Wouldn't San Antonio Independent School District Vs. Rodriguez need to be overturned for a ruling based on the 14th amendment be found? Doesn't seem particularly likely. ok this is good im learning things now i figure any precedent can be overturned if the majority of the judges want it to.* the fig leaf of judicial neutrality is important to supreme court justices, partly because they're told to believe this in law school, partly because they need a modicum of public trust to continue implementing their agenda, so you might need a particularly large majority of justices who favor the redistribution of wealth to overturn this precedent.* in my mind that's the amendment this information provides to the thoughts occasioned by the fishmech argument above* but lawyers exist for the purpose of finding reasons to get what they want, or are paid to want, as far as i can tell, so i doubt any specific legalism in the constitution or in precedent can absolutely preclude more than a half-dozen supreme court justices from getting what they want* *i am ignorant and unintelligent oystertoadfish has issued a correction as of 22:44 on Nov 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
rscott posted:Wouldn't San Antonio Independent School District Vs. Rodriguez need to be overturned for a ruling based on the 14th amendment be found? Doesn't seem particularly likely. Dred Scott got invalidated, so can modern-ish bullshit rulings like that. It's simply a matter of who's on the court.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbott_district This is a state level problem- not federal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:This is a state level problem- not federal. The federal problem is that any states are allowed to not do this. QED.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
MeatwadIsGod posted:So was this debate worth watching? I got the impression from the first one that Bernie treated it more like a stump speech than a debate, but it seemed like neither he nor Clinton were a clear winner to me. I've just gotten burned out on the election cycle and probably need to purge for a month before I care again. Only 8 million tuned in to watch this snoozefest.  The Bernout has already commenced.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Immortan posted:Only 8 million tuned in to watch this snoozefest. 8 million is 1/4 of the total voting population for the 2008 democratic primaries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:not against Trump, who's self-funded and already called out Bush for his 9/11 poo poo It will be interesting what happens when she encounters an actual politician. Bernster is bush league (  ) stuff and she's barely managing. It's kinda funny when loony lefties paint her as inevitable given how lovely she is at an actual campaign.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
MeatwadIsGod posted:So was this debate worth watching? I got the impression from the first one that Bernie treated it more like a stump speech than a debate, but it seemed like neither he nor Clinton were a clear winner to me. I've just gotten burned out on the election cycle and probably need to purge for a month before I care again. Bernie didn't "lose" but by the nature of this election means he lost. He's far behind where Obama was and at this point Hillary is a 90%+ favorite, hth. zen death robot posted:Saturday night was a good night to schedule a debate if you wanted to make sure that people with anything better to do didn't watch it. Yep. Hell, if Bern did well he'd have something to complain about but he really can't complain about the debate schedule given how lovely he's done relative to where he needs to be. tsa has issued a correction as of 03:16 on Nov 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
bitch all you want the only poll that counts happens in 2 months
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:bitch all you want Actually, the only poll which matters occurs in a little under a year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
*nods sagely*
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
the nicest thing i can think of to say about clintons 9/11 comment is that its good she said it now as opposed to five months from now, i guess
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:Saturday night was a good night to schedule a debate if you wanted to make sure that people with anything better to do didn't watch it. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
First Democratic debate: Canadian Election:  Republican CNBC debate:  Republican Fox debate. it was Fox right? anyway this one was a friday night iirc 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
nice graph of people with crippling depression on the internet
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:Well yeah like I was saying.... I mean that was really bad compared to other debates! my other post was for context because otherwise I realized it looked like "nuh-uh look at this big spike" 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
after further analysis here is an important demographic spike we all missed
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
Ralp posted:First Democratic debate: Where are pornhub's metrics on this debate?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 08:14
|
|
|
is there a corresponding huginn 2.0 and what does it measure. who's odin in this digital metaphor
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
Hard to believe this site still has lurkers. Just register already!
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:It's interesting that Sanders has cited two past republican presidents for his progressive policy positions: Teddy for breaking up banks and Eisenhower for increasing taxes on the wealthy. Cross party support. Or rather reminding the current GoP what they USED to support.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:So what should be done about K-12 problems? We can't fix it because it's a part of the broader class struggle (ok?) but free college doesn't mean poo poo in a lot of places where the choice is drop out or barely leave high school able to loving read and write. So what exactly should be done? You help those you can help. It sounds like you are upset that anything is getting fixed rather then "the more important" issues. Federalizing Education is even more of a pipe dream then reduced cost/free college.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
rscott posted:Wouldn't San Antonio Independent School District Vs. Rodriguez need to be overturned for a ruling based on the 14th amendment be found? Doesn't seem particularly likely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood_plan Worked for awhile. Too bad the Texas constitution is byzantine nightmare, so the plan was technically illegal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbott_district "A 2012 study by the New Jersey Department of Education, however, determined that score gains in the Abbotts were no higher than in those in high-poverty districts that did not participate in the Abbott lawsuit and therefore received much less state money" sounds to me like just throwing money at it doesnt really work
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
babypolis posted:"A 2012 study by the New Jersey Department of Education, however, determined that score gains in the Abbotts were no higher than in those in high-poverty districts that did not participate in the Abbott lawsuit and therefore received much less state money" They don't receive no state money at all though, they still receive thousands of state dollars per pupil to make up for the low property tax income from low property values. The special districts simply receive additional thousands of dollars from the state per pupil. Before all this started, back in the 80s, all of the poor districts received hundreds of dollars per pupil at absolute most.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:You know a good first step would be to maybe, just maybe make it so that poorer districts don't get hosed over because all the property taxes get paid in the wealthier areas and the money stays there. For fucks sake there are realistic steps that can be made without going all "class struggle, full communism, etc etc" which is just a bunch of empty rhetoric anyway. So you want to use rich people's money to pay for poor kids educations? Sounds like.....class warfare!  So wait the issue is the terminology? Also search my posts I never use the term "full communism" you do realize that's just a meme, right? Pointing out that something like education or minimum wage is a class based issue isn't exactly a Bolshevik coup dude
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
fishmech posted:They don't receive no state money at all though, they still receive thousands of state dollars per pupil to make up for the low property tax income from low property values. The special districts simply receive additional thousands of dollars from the state per pupil. Still it shows there a low upper limit to the effectiveness of more cash. And even then a pretty big gap remains which suggests money alone doesnt come close to solving the problem
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
babypolis posted:Still it shows there a low upper limit to the effectiveness of more cash. And even then a pretty big gap remains which suggests money alone doesnt come close to solving the problem Yes, but that limit is well above the funding most school districts in this country get. Like if every school district in this country was just getting the per student funds that the just plain poor districts in NJ get due to state funding boosts, we'd be doing a whole lot better and the poor and minorities would be getting much better education. With that funding in NJ, kids who you'd expect to be doing really poorly due to how their locality's demographics and social class are treated elsewhere, instead end up not doing very much worse then students from rich towns and upper middle income towns. One of the big pulls for the extra funding that the poorest/worst off districts get is that the teachers almost never need to worry about doing things like having to buy classroom supplies out of their own paycheck too - which does a lot for keeping retention of good teachers, as well as meaning they effectively get higher pay then their colleagues in other states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:It's possible to both address K-12 education, and make college free at the same time. It's not as if one issue completely crowds out the other in terms of what's possible politically. Frankly that would be worse at the college level. At least k-12 school is currently nationalized. Colleges (excepting community colleges) are in the business of being more elite than the next school. Throwing them more money and saying you'll cover college for everyone just means that schools will dump that money into the construction of buildings that only look good on a campus tour and make their school still more expensive. The only way to get something for your money is to nationalize the colleges and almost all of them will fight that tooth and nail. Especially if it looks like national k-12 is in bad shape, no one is going to want to be nationalized. Especially private schools, but then they're in direct competition with public schools. Even now the better state schools that have had their funding cut by their states have been pushing for "partial privatization." Free community college is a great idea that needs to happen yesterday. Free college is a much more complicated issue than people are making it out to be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 11:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 02:53 |
|
|
Skeesix posted:Frankly that would be worse at the college level. At least k-12 school is currently nationalized. Colleges (excepting community colleges) are in the business of being more elite than the next school. Throwing them more money and saying you'll cover college for everyone just means that schools will dump that money into the construction of buildings that only look good on a campus tour and make their school still more expensive. The only way to get something for your money is to nationalize the colleges and almost all of them will fight that tooth and nail. Especially if it looks like national k-12 is in bad shape, no one is going to want to be nationalized. I think you're a little confused on what "nationalized" means. K-12 education is run by the states, not the Federal government, although a lot of funding does come from the Federal level. American Universities are also mostly public institutions, but they're also run by the states. Part of the reason tuition costs have been so high is because government funding of post-secondary in most states has dropped over the decades.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 11:46
|
|
