user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
lol, if you don't know the 3 r's you shouldnt graduate.
by ABC on Tue May 09, 06 7:50am
[+]
I always found it ironic that two of three R's are spelled incorrectly.
Good for them for earning their diplomas. Maybe they can enroll at Berkeley and get a free token Master's Degree.
Two of three? Is that one of those fraction thingies the teacher kept going on and on about?
I suspect you have misperceived the ruling -- I doubt that what happened is as you have implied. Mor elikely, the judge found specific problems with the test or with the approach of a standardizied test in that situation -- so it is only if you presume that that test, exactly as written and presented, is the sole way to guarantee competency that your statement could be unquestionably true.
Somehow, I don't believe that will be the case.
Sad, sad. What we *don't* need is the standard of U.S. education to sink even further.
by mojo on Tue May 09, 06 8:50am
[+]
cath: the problem the judged cited was not that the test itself was unfair, simply that too many minority and lower class students were failing it, namely the children of illegal immigrants who could not speak english.
But I'm sure it's racist to expect students to speak the language of the country they live in.
But do you think it's a good thing that students will now graduate unable to add 2+2 and unable to converse with their peers? Do you think this will improve their chances later in life, or hurt them?
But given that this is california I bet all those illiterate students can recite all the achievements of women and minorities throughout history (in spanish of course), can lecture on how evil the white man is, and have the highest self-esteem in the world.
The ballotmaker's ballot quoted an article from the 05/09/2006 edition of the San Francisco Chronicle, which also went on to say:
"Judge Robert Freedman of Alameda County Superior Court said he based his ruling on the concept of "equal protection."
Attorney Arturo Gonzalez of the San Francisco law firm Morrison & Foerster, who brought the lawsuit challenging the exam, said he was thrilled with the judge's tentative ruling.
"I felt strongly that the state should not deprive a student of a diploma unless the state can say that every student has been fairly and properly prepared for that test," Gonzalez said. "There is overwhelming evidence that students throughout the state have not been taught the material on the test. And many students have been taught by teachers not credentialed in math and English."
Firstly, nowhere is the judge suggesting that the test is racist.
Secondly, nowhere is the judge suggesting that everyone has a "guaranteed right" to a diploma.
Thirdly, I don't know of anyone who considers subject matter, such as math, by itself, to be discriminatory.
Fourth, neither the judge, nor the attorney who brought this suit, are saying that people who have "learned nothing" should receive diplomas.
The judge stated, clearly, that the issue was equal protection, one of those concepts that appears in our U.S Constitution, but is, admittedly, reviled by elitist conservatives as not representing the true will of God.
It goes back to the idea that some conservatives think a race is fair if the privileged conservative only has to run 100 yards and the other guy has to run 500 yards, as long as the finish line for both is in the same place.
|
|
