Cutting Teachers Off At The Knees

The DISD, herein known as That District in Dallas, has once again hit a new personal low. In their dubious wisdom, the board has decided that homework won't be given if it will lower a student's grade, no grade lower than a 50% will be given and if a student retakes a test, the higher score will be used.
Story here

*slow simmer*

This is ridiculous. And it's also probably the result of a teacher publicly outing a coach for placing pressure to pass a student/athlete. Ironically, while this played out in the press, the adminstrators and coaches all seem to be pretty much in place. The teacher who reported the actions was non-renewed-educationspeak for "fired". How is this going to work? Kids can do nothing and get a 50%. They are free to sleep, to be disruptive, to generally cause havoc. And they don't really have to stretch to learn ANYTHING. The problem is that they will still have to pass state mandated tests-TAKS this year, end of course testing next year. How is that going to play out? How are kids who have partied their way to a 50 going to pass a state test? And when they don't, who will be blamed?

Answer: The teachers. The teachers will be blamed for all miscues, failures and mistakes. They will lose their jobs. And frankly, at this point, working at Walmart might be a relief.

The Dallas Independent School District has decided they won't teach anything to a student that doesn't want to learn. And they will blame teachers when these same students fail.

Yeah, that's fair. *sarcasm*

I understand that not all students learn at the same speed. My district even has reteach/retest policies in place. But we do expect students to turn in work. We do expect them to learn. And frankly, for students that do nothing in my class, I have given scores lower-much lower-than a 50%. To give a student that much for just showing up is tantamount to paying a clerk for showing up at the door, but still doing nothing. This is just another great example of nanny state mentality and the acceptance of mediocrity as the norm. And this is why we are playing economic catch up with the rest of the world.

Everything You Know Is Wrong.

It's funny how politicians predicate their fortunes on what they perceive as a stable and unchanging economic fortunes. They assume that the poor folks they champion today will always be poor, and that the rich folks they villainize will always be rich. Well that's not exactly true. It seems that of men born in the bottom 25% of income, 32% of them end up in the top 25% of income. And vice versa. The Romans used to have a goddess called Fortuna, who was to be appeased for her flippant ways. Perhaps politicians would do well to recall that those they help now, may curse them down the road for punitive taxes.
Story here.
Excerpt-or how to be a high income wage earner:
"1. High-income households are not likely to consist of one person earning a very high income (as is often assumed); rather, they are likely to have two or more income earners:
-In 2006, a whopping 81.4 percent of families in the top income quintile had two or more people working, and only 2.2 percent had no one working.
-By contrast, only 12.6 percent of families in the bottom quintile had two or more people working; 39.2 percent had no one working.
(This is Important)-
The average number of earners per family for the top group was 2.16, almost three times the 0.76 average for the bottom.

2. Census data show a large difference in full-time work and in the number of weeks worked in a year.
-Less than one-third of families in the lowest quintile had a head of household working full-time; in the top quintile, more than three-fourths of families did.
-Thus, average families in the top group have many more weeks of work than those in the bottom and, in the late 1970s, the 12-to-1 total income ratio shrunk to only 2-to-1 per week of work, according to one analysis.

3. Workers tend to start out at a low income, increase their earnings with experience, and then have lower incomes late in their careers or in retirement. For example, peak earnings typically occur in the 35-to-54 age group. However:
-In the bottom income quintile, only one-third of households are headed by someone 35 to 54; whereas, in the top quintile, more than half of household heads are in that age range.
(I want you to consider seriously the large number of single parent families in certain demographic groups AND the much earlier age of first pregnancy for those single mothers-THIS more than anything is a predictor of poverty.)
-The bottom group also has a much larger proportion of household heads more than 75 years of age — 11.5 percent versus 2.3 percent for the top group.
(This is also the result of drug/alcohol abuse that has left many grandparents in charge of raising grandchildren. So the sex and drug revolution did produce some casualties.)
-The bottom also has more young heads of households ages 15 to 24 — 10 percent

So, if you want to be wealthy, get an education, don't do drugs or alcohol, and don't have babies out of wedlock. Gee, where have I heard this all before?

An Inconvenient Stock Portfolio

Just another example of "Do as I say, not do as I do" from the Democrat Darlings of the Infotainment Industry. I don't know about you, but I am tired of forking over money, time and effort to do my part, when it seems the Democrat political elite are far more concerned about making sure airspace is safe for their private jets and that their Cape Cod views are disrupted by energy generating wind turbines. They've taken away nuclear, they have hobbled the oil industry, it's as if they want us "little people" to return to tents and cave to that the most important people, the politically correct and important people, can live in comfort. I think it's time to remind them who is Boss. Vote them out, every single incumbent. I mentioned this at the midterm elections, but now more than ever, these people Pelosi, Kennedy, Reid, Hutchison, all of them, need to go home and GET REAL JOBS!!!!!!!!!!

SEC Filing Raises Questions About the "Sustainability" of Generation Investment Management's $438 Million Investment Fund, says JunkScience.com