Quote:On Tuesday, the board passed a revised strategic plan that says that by 2018, it wants 90 percent of Asian students, 88 percent of white students, 81 percent of Hispanics and 74 percent of black students to be reading at or above grade level. For math, the goals are 92 percent of Asian kids to be proficient, whites at 86 percent, Hispanics at 80 percent and blacks at 74 percent. It also measures by other groupings, such as poverty and disabilities, reported the Palm Beach Post.
http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2012/10/12/flo...mic-goals/

Liberals want laws benefitting blacks and Hispanics because they don't think those individuals are capable of anything without assistance.

It's just 21st century apartheid.

They do Uconn/SMU. Really, I was not aware of that at all. What else do liberals want?

(10-13-2012 06:43 AM)Vewb1 Wrote:  They do Uconn/SMU. Really, I was not aware of that at all. What else do liberals want?

A functioning brain.

(10-13-2012 06:43 AM)Vewb1 Wrote:  They do Uconn/SMU. Really, I was not aware of that at all. What else do liberals want?

To take money from those that earn it...and give it to those that feel need it. BTW...the right is similarly guilty. It is just "where" they spend the loot that is the difference.

(10-13-2012 07:31 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(10-13-2012 06:43 AM)Vewb1 Wrote:  They do Uconn/SMU. Really, I was not aware of that at all. What else do liberals want?

To take money from those that earn it...and give it to those that feel need it. BTW...the right is similarly guilty. It is just "where" they spend the loot that is the difference.

You mean like for social security and Medicare?

(10-13-2012 08:30 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-13-2012 07:31 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(10-13-2012 06:43 AM)Vewb1 Wrote:  They do Uconn/SMU. Really, I was not aware of that at all. What else do liberals want?

To take money from those that earn it...and give it to those that feel need it. BTW...the right is similarly guilty. It is just "where" they spend the loot that is the difference.

You mean like for social security and Medicare?

My paycheck stub says otherwise. Regardless of my desire and against my consent...I pay for these programs through the fruits of my labor.

The welfare state is equally shared by both gangs. Just the targets of the welfare are different. I oppose both.

(10-13-2012 08:43 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(10-13-2012 08:30 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-13-2012 07:31 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(10-13-2012 06:43 AM)Vewb1 Wrote:  They do Uconn/SMU. Really, I was not aware of that at all. What else do liberals want?

To take money from those that earn it...and give it to those that feel need it. BTW...the right is similarly guilty. It is just "where" they spend the loot that is the difference.

You mean like for social security and Medicare?

My paycheck stub says otherwise. Regardless of my desire and against my consent...I pay for these programs through the fruits of my labor.

The welfare state is equally shared by both gangs. Just the targets of the welfare are different. I oppose both.

You pay into it but others are getting the benefit and more than you are paying.

(10-13-2012 04:11 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

Just a blogger's theory, so take it for what it's worth:

Quote:I can pretty much guarantee that this man photographed at a Romney rally in Lancaster, Ohio, is not in fact a Republican, but rather is a plant sent out by the Democrats as a dirty trick.
Clue #1: Wearing a “Romney/Ryan” sticker on the back of his T-shirt. Nobody does this. Nobody.
Clue #2: It’s kind of chilly in Ohio this time of year, and the guy’s wearing only a T-shirt, while those around him are wearing coats.

My guess is that this guy also wore a coat when he entered the rally, then stationed himself toward the back of the crowd (in front of the riser where the press photographers are stationed) and then removed his coat to expose the T-shirt, with the explicit purpose of having it photographed.

. . . aaanndd, Clue #3: No name? A press photographer is going to take a picture like this and make no effort to ID the guy? Nuh-uh.

http://theothermccain.com/2012/10/13/fal...troll-irl/

Blame the media and democrats. I never saw that coming.

If I were to lay money on a bet... sure, I'd agree with you and say the guy was "real." But it's not like I'd be stunned if it was some troll. There have been proven scattered cases of 'Tea Party Crashers' these past few years, and given how often the raaaacist! card tends to fly in discourse, it'd be a clever plan to plant a few of these dudes at these events to "prove" it.

Gosh this thread got sidetracked in a hurry.

Hardly anybody responded to the article.

The soft bigotry of low expectations, is how I see it. Pathetic and sad. This will end up in court.

(10-14-2012 04:18 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Gosh this thread got sidetracked in a hurry.

Hardly anybody responded to the article.

The soft bigotry of low expectations, is how I see it. Pathetic and sad. This will end up in court.

Yep, agreed, Bull's original post is very valid and worth a look. A mindset that says XYZ ethnicity is assumed to be from such-and-such socioeconomic and domestic backgrounds, and therefore their behaviors and abilities need to be viewed from different "dumbed down" lenses.

This soft/unintentional bigotry is shown on a nation-level as well: The Western and industrialized world's leaders is set to one standard, while African and Mideast leaders are set to another, because the West's leaders "oughta know better."

So a teacher walks into a classroom of all all black students with the mindset and expectation that 26% will fail. If I was black I'd be very, very upset with this.

(10-14-2012 05:16 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  So a teacher walks into a classroom of all all black students with the mindset and expectation that 26% will fail. If I was black I'd be very, very upset with this.

In fairness, in this case, that teacher is probably more worried about being murdered....

(10-13-2012 12:47 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

Quote:On Tuesday, the board passed a revised strategic plan that says that by 2018, it wants 90 percent of Asian students, 88 percent of white students, 81 percent of Hispanics and 74 percent of black students to be reading at or above grade level. For math, the goals are 92 percent of Asian kids to be proficient, whites at 86 percent, Hispanics at 80 percent and blacks at 74 percent. It also measures by other groupings, such as poverty and disabilities, reported the Palm Beach Post.
http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2012/10/12/flo...mic-goals/

Only 92% of Asians for math? The scandal is them low balling that one.

(10-14-2012 06:16 PM)blah Wrote:  

(10-14-2012 05:16 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  So a teacher walks into a classroom of all all black students with the mindset and expectation that 26% will fail. If I was black I'd be very, very upset with this.

In fairness, in this case, that teacher is probably more worried about being murdered....

I know, I feel for that teacher, especially if it was all male students with nothing but sex on their minds.

They are implementing something like that here in DC too. My first reaction was WTF – but as I read the details and intent it made sense. The underlying factor is to have each kid increase his/her skills/proficiency. The overall goal is to have everyone proficient of course, but will never happen.

I think they are even breaking the goals down to the school level based on current baselines. The demographic buckets they are rolled up to is built from the current baselines of the current proficiency. In reality the more proficient are generally form the more affluent families, and the less proficient from the less affluent. The racial demographic when rolled up also mirrors the racial demographics on income and wealth.

So if this increases each kids proficiency based on their current baseline, then I do not see it as racial.

(10-15-2012 12:41 PM)dcCid Wrote:  They are implementing something like that here in DC too. My first reaction was WTF – but as I read the details and intent it made sense. The underlying factor is to have each kid increase his/her skills/proficiency. The overall goal is to have everyone proficient of course, but will never happen.

I think they are even breaking the goals down to the school level based on current baselines. The demographic buckets they are rolled up to is built from the current baselines of the current proficiency. In reality the more proficient are generally form the more affluent families, and the less proficient from the less affluent. The racial demographic when rolled up also mirrors the racial demographics on income and wealth.

So if this increases each kids proficiency based on their current baseline, then I do not see it as racial.

Let me ask you...

If 78% of Blacks in a school are proficient and 79% of whites then where will the school administration really focus their efforts?

On the Blacks who are above the baseline or the whites who are below (and thus could hurt the school)