• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Clinton announces intent to shut thousands of schools

I've never understood how a building can affect the performance of the people inside. I understand that a leaky roof or bad lighting would be a problem, but the solution to those things are obvious.

How does taking all the people out of a building and sending them to other places improve things?

Leaving out any health and safety concerns, which I think would obviously affect learning and education for any students attending classes, the design of buildings can definitely affect what kinds of programming a school offers, size of classes, what kinds of classes, and so on.

Some buildings were built during that period of time when some were enamored of open classrooms, meaning that the entire school or at least large portions of it are in one big open area, with individual classrooms defined by clusters of desks and shelving rather than walls. The idea was that teachers could more easily move their classes together for shared lessons, and so on. Sounds neat? It's pretty noisy, actually. Not being done as far as I know now.

I've seen art classes offered in basements with fluorescent overhead lighting, which is terrible for anything, but especially art. A building that lacks access will not be hospitable to students with physical disabilities.

In an idea world, you are correct: all schools should be designed so as not to be an impediment to learning. Good design can enhance learning. Think about how some spaces feel to you, how you feel in some kinds of spaces. Not everyone likes the same things, but spaces with lots of natural light (windows were often made much smaller due to energy conservation) are conducive to learning and mood. Cluttered vs clean lines. Cozy spaces ideal for quiet learning one on one or alone should be available. Color, lighting, sound control, heating and cooling all can enhance--or hinder learning. For the same reasons that some work spaces are much better suited for some tasks.

My work place is very noisy--open floor plan. It works fine for some tasks but for times when I need to have a quiet space where I can focus on certain kinds of tasks, it's really not good at all. Those days I come home with a splitting headache. And I haven't been very productive.

We did a kitchen remodel a few years back. Went from something that was poorly designed in the early 60's by someone who obviously never cooked a meal to a nice, open, much more functional layout and it's much easier and much more pleasant to spend time there.
 
While I agree it's not about closing schools it's still a big problem.

She's saying she won't accept anything less than average performance--but in the real world there must be less than average performance unless you have absolutely perfect equality. This is a major lack of understanding of what she's talking about.
 
Hillary Clinton said:
This school district and these schools throughout Iowa are doing a better than average job," Clinton told the crowd. "Now, I wouldn't keep any school open that wasn't doing a better than average job. If a school's not doing a good job, then you know it may not be good for the kids.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/clint...ing-a-better-than-average-job/article/2000327

Given there are roughly 100,000 public schools in the US (I assume in her position as Czar of Schools she would only have power to shut public schools) if we assume the quality of the job schools are doing is roughly normally distributed, this amounts to closing about 50,000 schools.
dismal, how does supporting a policy that right-wingers like make Hillary Clinton a left-wing ogre?
 
I've never understood how a building can affect the performance of the people inside. I understand that a leaky roof or bad lighting would be a problem, but the solution to those things are obvious.

How does taking all the people out of a building and sending them to other places improve things?

You talk about the buildings because otherwise you'd have to notice the teachers and students. And no one wants to do that. How the US ever got to the Moon with people educated during the depression, attending class in buildings sorely lacking our contemporary accommodation, and with a fraction of today's education spending, is surely one of the greatest mysteries ever.
 
I've never understood how a building can affect the performance of the people inside. I understand that a leaky roof or bad lighting would be a problem, but the solution to those things are obvious.

How does taking all the people out of a building and sending them to other places improve things?

You talk about the buildings because otherwise you'd have to notice the teachers and students. And no one wants to do that. How the US ever got to the Moon with people educated during the depression, attending class in buildings sorely lacking our contemporary accommodation, and with a fraction of today's education spending, is surely one of the greatest mysteries ever.

I agree, those people raised in the depression that only made it to high school were the scientist and technicians that worked for NASA.
 
You talk about the buildings because otherwise you'd have to notice the teachers and students. And no one wants to do that. How the US ever got to the Moon with people educated during the depression, attending class in buildings sorely lacking our contemporary accommodation, and with a fraction of today's education spending, is surely one of the greatest mysteries ever.
They also didn't have jet engines back then. So should we go back to the sort of airplane engines that won World War II?

As to how much education spending, do you have the numbers? Did you correct them for inflation?
 
Sounds good. You can funnel the money saved on those inadequate schools into funding the bombing of somewhere in the Middle East and some much needed upper income tax cuts.

Also, less people going to school means less people being able to recognize her poor mathematical skills.

And also more high school dropouts, which means a rich harvest for military recruiters, and in turn, a huge boost in manpower to the police departments.

I'm thinking that by the end of the 20s the U.S. military will be the ONLY thing in America that still impresses anyone.
 
You talk about the buildings because otherwise you'd have to notice the teachers and students. And no one wants to do that. How the US ever got to the Moon with people educated during the depression, attending class in buildings sorely lacking our contemporary accommodation, and with a fraction of today's education spending, is surely one of the greatest mysteries ever.

I agree, those people raised in the depression that only made it to high school were the scientist and technicians that worked for NASA.
No, they were the scientists and technicians that worked for the Air Force.

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/2iXlg66sd3w[/YOUTUBE]

We got to the moon with people educated in Nazi Germany, who got most of their experience building ballistic missiles to fire at civilian targets in London.
 
You talk about the buildings because otherwise you'd have to notice the teachers and students. And no one wants to do that. How the US ever got to the Moon with people educated during the depression, attending class in buildings sorely lacking our contemporary accommodation, and with a fraction of today's education spending, is surely one of the greatest mysteries ever.

I agree, those people raised in the depression that only made it to high school were the scientist and technicians that worked for NASA.

So your saying the NASA scientists didn't attend secondary schools during the depression? :confused:
 
You talk about the buildings because otherwise you'd have to notice the teachers and students. And no one wants to do that. How the US ever got to the Moon with people educated during the depression, attending class in buildings sorely lacking our contemporary accommodation, and with a fraction of today's education spending, is surely one of the greatest mysteries ever.
They also didn't have jet engines back then. So should we go back to the sort of airplane engines that won World War II?

As to how much education spending, do you have the numbers? Did you correct them for inflation?

That's entirely missing the point. This is similar to the discussion recently on this forum regarding "elite" schools. "Elite" schools are "elite" because of the students; not the buildings, etc. The same goes for secondary schools. It's the students that matter. The secondary students of the depression lacked all the accouterments professed now to be vital for a good education. Yet, the students turned out extraordinarily well. A good student will learn whether the school is in the most flashy expensive building, or a tent.

And:

k12_spending.png


http://www.justfacts.com/education.asp
 
While I agree it's not about closing schools it's still a big problem.

She's saying she won't accept anything less than average performance--but in the real world there must be less than average performance unless you have absolutely perfect equality. This is a major lack of understanding of what she's talking about.

Is it even remotely possible that YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT SHE IS TALKING ABOUT? Even a wee smidgen? Her and her old man are in the business of connecting people up with winning propositions and profit. That is her motive. If she is elected, she tells us outright she expects the corporations to love her. Now why do you suppose she would make a claim like that (in the last debate no less)? Because she is a corporate whore and just another version of Trump with a dress and a little better PR presentation.
 
The secondary students of the depression lacked all the accouterments professed now to be vital for a good education. Yet, the students turned out extraordinarily well.
Evidence? You must include all students, not just those at the top of the class.

Trausti, they didn't have computers or the Internet back then, and they had to learn how to use mechanical typewriters and mechanical adding machines. Is that what you want everybody's kids to learn on?

Also, Trausti, why don't you whine about military spending some time? Whine that they aren't using the weapons that they used to win World War II. Or World War I. Or the Civil War. Or the Revolutionary War.
 
How many 8th Graders today could pass it? Do we blame the buildings?
Most of those questions are useless trivia. I'm sure 8th graders today could pass just as easy if presented the information in class and memorized it for the test
 
There was no misrepresentation. There is a video clip of her saying the exact quote I quoted at the link.

Your thread title and every word of your OP other than the quote along with every word of the Weekly Standard article is a gross misrepresentation of what her quote was actually referring to. The propaganda rag you got your story from has a "standard" of lying on a "weekly" basis in order to advance their agenda.

Except it isn't.
 
Your thread title and every word of your OP other than the quote along with every word of the Weekly Standard article is a gross misrepresentation of what her quote was actually referring to. The propaganda rag you got your story from has a "standard" of lying on a "weekly" basis in order to advance their agenda.

Except it isn't.

Yeah everybody, quit picking on dismal. He has done best partisan critical thinking he can.
 
Since she has neither the power nor the ability, there is no intent (your word) involved.
 
Back
Top Bottom