Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Americans Are Saying Hell No To Trump's Extremist Appointments" video.

In reality what will work is the IB program in an Title I school. Now you don't want it to be in a Title I school with a lot of crime, but one that has issues in terms of poor performances due to lower income students. We did it in one of the schools in our district and scores went up across the board, even for the lower achieving student. Success begets success.
2
The most common degree for CEOs is engineering. They seem highly educated to me. I wonder which party CEOs tend to vote for?
2
What is this about agreeing with the people? The people have spoken. They voted for Trump and republicans. How about some of these people come out and vote if they didn't want this.
2
3 million people is a very small fraction of the US, essentially within error. But you are ignoring how republicans holds congress and most state and local levels.
2
Jon, we already have 50 states with 50 different sets of driving laws, murder laws, funding and rules for police force (really more than 50 since they are city controlled), residency laws and so on. It isn't a patchwork quilt system, it is a system to allow for both autonomy and control. Also, is is a system to allow for competition.
2
Daniel, the department of education at the federal level has not involved with K-12 education that much. In reality it is hardly involved at all. DeVos is not going to do anything, the states will continue to handle K-12. If anything she will eliminate federal standards and let the states handle it.
2
Probably. There is a strong correlation with education level and income level. There is also a trend of those with a higher income voting republican. To me if you remove academics who are professors who typically can't make it in the private sector, than republicans will be winning the votes of those with a college education.
1
This is a way to basically eliminate these programs. You can't just do away with them so Trump is putting people in power that will just make them exist in name only. A a limited government/state rights guy I like it. You may not but it is a major change and will be interesting to see how it changes the country. Be honest we haven't had this major of a change at the federal level since the 1960 early 70s......maybe even the 1930s.
1
Dream Walker, we have been expanding the federal government for decades since the 1930s and it has snowballed into the problems we have now. Trump has a low approval rating because we are creatures of habits and love predictability and don't like change. Now Trump is pushing for change in the opposite direction than what we have been doing for around 80 years and people are scared. At the very least give it a shot, see what happens. Right now we have, as a country, massive debt, an expensive healthcare system, tuition going up, household income that should not be where it should be and so on. While things are great as a whole, they can be much better. But doubling down on the expansion of the federal government does not seem like the solution.
1
Gerrymandering occurs in both parties. Also, which party had closed elections? You really can't define a state as "republican" or "democrat" as it is much more complex than that. http://www.electproject.org/2016g That shows voter turnout rate.
1
"If you count all those people together, many more people voted against Trump than for him." That is actually the norm. Not many presidents won with over 50% of the votes.
1
Also, they don't have anyone in mind who they would put in this position. This is another example of liberals crying about a problem but giving no solutions.
1
States run and fund K-12 education. She will have very little say.
1
gbnz53, K-12 education is mainly ran and funded by the state and local governments. Other countries can kind of get away with a centralized system because they are around the size of US states. So it is not really a fair comparison to the US. Even Sir Ken Robinson agreed with that. Also, what is your standard of a good education? Test taking or productivity? The US is in the top 5 in productivity. We also have a unique university system compared to other countries and it works well.
1
gbnz53, the idea behind state funded education as opposed to a centralized one is that it is managed better as with most state programs compared to federal ones. Also, if you have a centralized program you are telling certain states to regress towards a standard as opposed to doing what they want that may work better. There is really no one correct program to use. You point towards other countries that have a centralized system but you never mention what exactly do they do. What may work in one state might not work in another. Also, with states running the show that leads to competition. Another reason for states running education is control. The more local government is the more control you have over it. Government education can be used as indoctrination. N. Korea has a centralized system and also has, by their standards, 100% literacy rate. On S. Korea they do so well because they have a society that places their kids in privately ran after school programs. Working with someone from S. Korea he said that the US school are just as good as the ones in S. Korea. Students do better because of their after school program. That is a society thing, not an education issue. TX has a society that funds football and instead they have people who practice football after school or are involved in some other way. Is that necessarily bad? TX, compared to other states, do very well in education. NV struggles at public education because they are held back by Clark County. Where is the incentive to become educated when you can earn $80,000 a year parking cars or serving drinks at a casino? Again, different culture. CA has a problem of a large immigration population from Mexico (same with TX, NV, and NM). They lack teachers who can speak spanish which hurts education there as well. Again, different culture. It is not as easy as you are making it sound. You say this "all States who have aspirations to be say a Civil Engineer, Scientist, Doctor, Teacher, or even a Mechanic, deserve to have the same equal education opportunities" when in several areas they simply don't have the people to teach certain subjects. A school by my hometown in a rural area had a biologist teaching physics. Where in cities they have AP and IB programs. As is people across the country have sufficient opportunities, especially with our college program. But what we don't need is a centralized program as it will make things worse.
1
superleggers, we do have problems in the US and change is needed. But when a man comes in pushing for it everyone becomes scare. The fact is that people really don't want change, we are creatures of habits. People are willing to accept the status quo over change that could be beneficial.
1