Hell even that gives them too much Leeway, terminates the moment the bill is passed without any delay as to give no time for them to whine about how "necessary" they are.
Only exact sciences should use a common programm: Science, Maths, Language.
Whatever involves an emotional role of the teacher should be left to every school’s discretion provided the program is made publicly available as well as the drills and evaluation material.
Edit: and for the record, I do not think that Man-made Global Warming is a science, neither is history: if today’s news are fake, I would never agree to have historical researchers being shut up.
I'm against common programs because I think if someone can do it better/faster/cheaper, they should do it better/faster/cheaper. I'd maybe be for keeping around standardized testing, but only as a measuring tool, it should not be tied to funding whatsoever. Education would be improved so much in the US if there was competition and worthless people could be fired, and troublemakers and slower students could break away on their own path. Let excellent people excel. I also think more trades should be taught around the 6th grade and on level, and schools should give actual advice on careers and do cost benefit analysis when it comes to going to college. I also think if education is payed for at all by tax payers it should be in the form of tax deductions to people with children in education and then the parents pay it themselves.
I'd maybe be for keeping around standardized testing
If I'm an engineering employer, I want to make sure someone I hire can be an engineer. Before we had standardized testing ("certifications" are the "I know how to be an engineer" standardized test), we would look at someone's work to determine if we liked it. If that wasn't available, we would talk to people to assess their hireability. If they don't know enough about engineering when I talk to them and they have no work to show me, I don't give a fuck what they got on a cert exam.
as a measuring tool
What are we measuring? Why are we measuring? Is someone who gets a better score on an SAT going to make a more productive person? Will it make them a better person? Will it make them a more contributing member of society? Do any of those questions even matter?
We have standardized testing because the Rockefellers et al wanted to create workers, not thinkers. Standardation is what you want to build the Machine. It has nothing to do with life.
I'd say for measuring performance, just some easier way for people to see this school is better than that one. And I don't mean keep the standardized tests we have now, those are garbage, they'd need to be rewritten. I'd just want some kind of score or index to measure the performance of a school, but maybe that opens up too many problems; it's a hard thing to measure accurately. I'm in software development and I'd agree with you that certs are not all that, talking with someone for like 30 min gives me a much better idea of what they know, but I'm talking more elementary and high school level here so I don't know that interviewing students is a solution.
Maybe a better performance metric would be student outcomes in the job market, but that would have a pretty big lag time, I don't know.
just some easier way for people to see this school is better than that one.
Why? Why is that the way? Why are we always measuring dicks? Education needs to change completely. I don't mean we need to be more open minded, less restrictive, I mean we need to move away from creating the Machine and moving towards understanding the universe and/or life and/or ourselves.
In anything we need to know, there is no "standard" to which we need to be measured. Almost everything we currently think matters (everything on these tests) is just part of creating or maintaining the Cabal Machine.
Our education builds The Matrix. We need to learn to appreciate exactly what that really means.
So I pretty much agree with you here. I'm looking at schools and education as it pertains to equipping a person to interact with the world and succeed and be self-sufficient. I'm looking at it in a way to deal with the world as it is today.
You are talking much bigger picture stuff, which I would love, but essentially means we also need to change the way we live and structure society, which is a task that should be approached at your peril and with great caution since it can go so bad in so many ways.
Our education builds The Matrix.
As it is now? Yeah. And maybe what I'm suggesting, in a way, would do that too. That journey of "understanding the universe and/or life and/or ourselves" has always been one I've undertaken alone (in a sense), so I didn't even really consider incorporating that into our Education System.
I think there are small portions at least, of this Matrix we find ourselves in, that are probably still essential to living life. That's probably why so many accept it. Which maybe then you would just say that isn't part of it, so semantics maybe. But I've always viewed education and a vocation as part of those essentials. We have certain needs that need to be met before anyone can even think about "understanding the universe and/or life and/or ourselves"
We have certain needs that need to be met before anyone can even think about "understanding the universe and/or life and/or ourselves"
These are not separate endeavors. For example, monks spend their time farming, and meditating. It's the same action.
The Universe speaks to us all the time. We spend so much of our time not listening to what it has to say, because we are so busy making The Machine, and worrying about our house payments (which are a huge part of the fraud) and thinking about our relationship problems (also an huge and intentional part of the fraud). It is the work we do, and the problems that we have that are "the problem."
I'm not saying all of our work is "bad." I love science. I love building things, creating things, engineering things. I love writing software and making a computer sing to my tune. It is very rewarding. There is an appreciation of That Which Is within those endeavors, when we do it for ourselves. It is when we do it for The Machine that it loses its soul, that we lose our soul.
The Matrix is built upon Truth. It can't be any other way. The Matrix is our beliefs of what is real, that are created for us, to perpetuate the fraud, to keep us locked within it. To keep us separated and at odds with each other, to hide the real enemy.
Once we recognize that The Matrix exists, that it has many layers, that there are multiple levels of The Matrix, many veils to uncover, each one behind the previous one; then we will be on the path out. The full reveal may take a while, but the initial recognition of its existence, and the subsequent exposition of scope I don't think will take that long. We can begin building a completely different world right away.
Once the economy becomes truly free (which it has never been), I think the world will change at break-neck speed.
Only exact sciences should use a common programm: Science, Maths, Language.
Absolutely not. That is exactly why we are where we are today.
None of these things are "truth". In fact they are all lies (as taught).
For example, Math is a language. It begins with axioms and it uses logic to extend itself. Math is exactly the language of logic itself. You don't need a "curriculum" for Math, because it's either math or it's not. That makes it very easy to teach, and there is no "wrong way" to teach math, because it's either math or it's not. However, Math can never make statements of Truth. It is only a useful, and self-consistent language. It is either self consistent (Math) or it is not Math. That single guiding principle is all that is required to teach Math.
Science is the worst offender here, because it is, like math, taught as some form of "truth" when in fact its goal is exactly the opposite of truth. The entire scientific method is designed to prove itself untrue (prove the null hypothesis). When it fails to prove itself false, we call that an advancement. It is the scientific method that is all that needs to be "standard" in the teaching of science. Everything else takes care of itself from there. Even so, my best science teachers were those that went the furthest outside the box in their teaching. A standard curriculum is the worst idea ever for a real education in science.
All you need to know about language is that it is incomplete. Our definitions are not "truth", nor do they encompass the "whole of something." On the contrary they are all not what something is. At best they represent a tiny piece of what something is. At worst they are completely the opposite of what something is (see "racism" e.g.). If you understand that our languages limit Reality, instead of "give it truth" then you understand all there is to know about language. No curriculum required.
Peace is not achieved by all believing the same thing (even if that same thing is achieved through engaged debate). Peace is achieved by learning how to listen (not agree) or by not wanting what someone else has.
In the case of a debate for example, what someone want's most (I assert) is to be heard. It isn't to be believed, but for their words, their thoughts, their feelings, their... "them" to have mattered to someone else. This concept is often stated (not entirely accurately, at least as it is formally defined) as "respect."
In the case of wars on the other hand, what almost always matters is not what someone says, but the resources they possess. This of course doesn't count when wars are started by butt-hurt rulers that happened generally because they felt they weren't heard (i.e. respected). In that case it becomes a "war" because of a misapplication of the concept of sovereignty. That's a whole other can of worms.
Each kid gets a small cabin in the woods. They have to check in once every month. THAT's the kind of American education this generation of crybabies needs now!
You can't just throw maths at someone and expect them to get it. A curriculum is needed. You can't just start with trigonometry without first understanding geometry. And algebra is needed for all variable driven maths.
You also can't teach science without first teaching the scientific method. Without understanding that it's just experimenting for the sake of experimenting.
While there is a logical progression to math, because of it's very nature, a "curriculum" is completely unnecessary. On the contrary, it can disrupt the progression, by forcing certain concepts that a person could achieve an understanding of by another path, their own path.
There are certain concepts that must be understood to understand math. There are infinite paths to achieve that understanding.
You also can't teach science without first teaching the scientific method.
Since you are saying this as if it were in opposition to what I said, I suggest you didn't read what I wrote, since this is almost verbatim what I said.
Once you teach the scientific method (which takes an hour to teach, and a lifetime to master) you have done all the "curriculum" required.
If it is a logical progression, no curriculum is required.
There are many possible logical progressions.
If you force a curriculum, you have to get lucky that you have hit on a "best" one (in an average sense), and that one will almost certainly not be the best for everyone.
The word curriculum is just a word used to describe a progression. Do or do not call it that if you choose but if it acts like a duck... If it wasn't logical none of our kids would graduate. My oldest is on high honor role on the advanced schedule. My second is also on high honor role but not in the advanced schedule. Neither one of them could be doing as well as they are with a logically laid out curriculum.
I am very happy that the fixed course of study they are on is working for them. That doesn't mean a curriculum is required for learning, nor does it mean that it is the best path for learning.
I also did very well on the curriculum, at all stages of learning. I believe I would have done a thousand times better on a different path. My best teachers were the ones that had no curriculum (at least it was extremely flexible, catered to the student). The greatest teacher I ever had was so free form in her teaching it was incredible. I will never forget her (5th grade). Her entire class was learning different shit. She was a maestro. She had a greater influence on my thinking than anyone else in my life (except myself) and was one of the primary inspirations for my endeavors in science.
I also have been a teacher (formally and informally, though not on the same level as a full professor/school teacher). I have taught math, physics, chemistry, biology, philosophy, religion, hell, you name it, I've probably taught it (math more than anything). A lot of that was forced by a curriculum. The stuff that was not, but within which I had more latitude, was always more well received (and hopefully remembered) by the student.
Well, school was supposed to be about the three R’s; reading, writing and arithmetic. Since they got only one of three spellings right I suggest it’s best they stay away from other things like social science and biology.
I'd be absolutely floored if this became law. Unfortunately, I've been around long enough to spot when a politician is trying to gain brownie points with constituents with a toothless bill. "Well folks I tried!"
Unfortunately, you are exactly right. The bill is just self-promotion until a legislator does some groundwork and establishes support within the party and makes a push with voters.
We voters can "amplify" a bill, but legislators have a responsibility to do more than drop one-line bills at random and claim they've done their job. They also need to maximize their own effectiveness or the public can't be blamed for not jumping on board.
Be still my heart! I am all in on this one. And while you're at it get rid of the Dept or Energy and the Dept of Human Health Services and any other redundant useless Departments.
One issue one bill, can we have reps mail in votes to pass this one? I know someone who works at the post office. Just declare a fake emergency like contagious hypochondria or something.
No reason to keep them at all. If they were useful, the semester is almost over so it’s on auto pilot. Summer is almost here so don’t need them to conspire sabotage for next year so just stop the waste. We don’t have the funds
FTFY
Hell even that gives them too much Leeway, terminates the moment the bill is passed without any delay as to give no time for them to whine about how "necessary" they are.
#HR899 SHOULD read - Any government Department not specified in the Constitution of the United States shall terminate on December 31, 2022.
That is the FIX!
YES!
Only exact sciences should use a common programm: Science, Maths, Language.
Whatever involves an emotional role of the teacher should be left to every school’s discretion provided the program is made publicly available as well as the drills and evaluation material.
Edit: and for the record, I do not think that Man-made Global Warming is a science, neither is history: if today’s news are fake, I would never agree to have historical researchers being shut up.
I'm against common programs because I think if someone can do it better/faster/cheaper, they should do it better/faster/cheaper. I'd maybe be for keeping around standardized testing, but only as a measuring tool, it should not be tied to funding whatsoever. Education would be improved so much in the US if there was competition and worthless people could be fired, and troublemakers and slower students could break away on their own path. Let excellent people excel. I also think more trades should be taught around the 6th grade and on level, and schools should give actual advice on careers and do cost benefit analysis when it comes to going to college. I also think if education is payed for at all by tax payers it should be in the form of tax deductions to people with children in education and then the parents pay it themselves.
If I'm an engineering employer, I want to make sure someone I hire can be an engineer. Before we had standardized testing ("certifications" are the "I know how to be an engineer" standardized test), we would look at someone's work to determine if we liked it. If that wasn't available, we would talk to people to assess their hireability. If they don't know enough about engineering when I talk to them and they have no work to show me, I don't give a fuck what they got on a cert exam.
What are we measuring? Why are we measuring? Is someone who gets a better score on an SAT going to make a more productive person? Will it make them a better person? Will it make them a more contributing member of society? Do any of those questions even matter?
We have standardized testing because the Rockefellers et al wanted to create workers, not thinkers. Standardation is what you want to build the Machine. It has nothing to do with life.
I'd say for measuring performance, just some easier way for people to see this school is better than that one. And I don't mean keep the standardized tests we have now, those are garbage, they'd need to be rewritten. I'd just want some kind of score or index to measure the performance of a school, but maybe that opens up too many problems; it's a hard thing to measure accurately. I'm in software development and I'd agree with you that certs are not all that, talking with someone for like 30 min gives me a much better idea of what they know, but I'm talking more elementary and high school level here so I don't know that interviewing students is a solution. Maybe a better performance metric would be student outcomes in the job market, but that would have a pretty big lag time, I don't know.
Why? Why is that the way? Why are we always measuring dicks? Education needs to change completely. I don't mean we need to be more open minded, less restrictive, I mean we need to move away from creating the Machine and moving towards understanding the universe and/or life and/or ourselves.
In anything we need to know, there is no "standard" to which we need to be measured. Almost everything we currently think matters (everything on these tests) is just part of creating or maintaining the Cabal Machine.
Our education builds The Matrix. We need to learn to appreciate exactly what that really means.
So I pretty much agree with you here. I'm looking at schools and education as it pertains to equipping a person to interact with the world and succeed and be self-sufficient. I'm looking at it in a way to deal with the world as it is today.
You are talking much bigger picture stuff, which I would love, but essentially means we also need to change the way we live and structure society, which is a task that should be approached at your peril and with great caution since it can go so bad in so many ways.
As it is now? Yeah. And maybe what I'm suggesting, in a way, would do that too. That journey of "understanding the universe and/or life and/or ourselves" has always been one I've undertaken alone (in a sense), so I didn't even really consider incorporating that into our Education System.
I think there are small portions at least, of this Matrix we find ourselves in, that are probably still essential to living life. That's probably why so many accept it. Which maybe then you would just say that isn't part of it, so semantics maybe. But I've always viewed education and a vocation as part of those essentials. We have certain needs that need to be met before anyone can even think about "understanding the universe and/or life and/or ourselves"
These are not separate endeavors. For example, monks spend their time farming, and meditating. It's the same action.
The Universe speaks to us all the time. We spend so much of our time not listening to what it has to say, because we are so busy making The Machine, and worrying about our house payments (which are a huge part of the fraud) and thinking about our relationship problems (also an huge and intentional part of the fraud). It is the work we do, and the problems that we have that are "the problem."
I'm not saying all of our work is "bad." I love science. I love building things, creating things, engineering things. I love writing software and making a computer sing to my tune. It is very rewarding. There is an appreciation of That Which Is within those endeavors, when we do it for ourselves. It is when we do it for The Machine that it loses its soul, that we lose our soul.
The Matrix is built upon Truth. It can't be any other way. The Matrix is our beliefs of what is real, that are created for us, to perpetuate the fraud, to keep us locked within it. To keep us separated and at odds with each other, to hide the real enemy.
Once we recognize that The Matrix exists, that it has many layers, that there are multiple levels of The Matrix, many veils to uncover, each one behind the previous one; then we will be on the path out. The full reveal may take a while, but the initial recognition of its existence, and the subsequent exposition of scope I don't think will take that long. We can begin building a completely different world right away.
Once the economy becomes truly free (which it has never been), I think the world will change at break-neck speed.
Absolutely not. That is exactly why we are where we are today.
None of these things are "truth". In fact they are all lies (as taught).
For example, Math is a language. It begins with axioms and it uses logic to extend itself. Math is exactly the language of logic itself. You don't need a "curriculum" for Math, because it's either math or it's not. That makes it very easy to teach, and there is no "wrong way" to teach math, because it's either math or it's not. However, Math can never make statements of Truth. It is only a useful, and self-consistent language. It is either self consistent (Math) or it is not Math. That single guiding principle is all that is required to teach Math.
Science is the worst offender here, because it is, like math, taught as some form of "truth" when in fact its goal is exactly the opposite of truth. The entire scientific method is designed to prove itself untrue (prove the null hypothesis). When it fails to prove itself false, we call that an advancement. It is the scientific method that is all that needs to be "standard" in the teaching of science. Everything else takes care of itself from there. Even so, my best science teachers were those that went the furthest outside the box in their teaching. A standard curriculum is the worst idea ever for a real education in science.
All you need to know about language is that it is incomplete. Our definitions are not "truth", nor do they encompass the "whole of something." On the contrary they are all not what something is. At best they represent a tiny piece of what something is. At worst they are completely the opposite of what something is (see "racism" e.g.). If you understand that our languages limit Reality, instead of "give it truth" then you understand all there is to know about language. No curriculum required.
I like our disagreement here. I actually love it because what carries us is the need for a common denominator… the basis for universal peace?
Is that a need? Is it even desirable?
Peace is not achieved by all believing the same thing (even if that same thing is achieved through engaged debate). Peace is achieved by learning how to listen (not agree) or by not wanting what someone else has.
In the case of a debate for example, what someone want's most (I assert) is to be heard. It isn't to be believed, but for their words, their thoughts, their feelings, their... "them" to have mattered to someone else. This concept is often stated (not entirely accurately, at least as it is formally defined) as "respect."
In the case of wars on the other hand, what almost always matters is not what someone says, but the resources they possess. This of course doesn't count when wars are started by butt-hurt rulers that happened generally because they felt they weren't heard (i.e. respected). In that case it becomes a "war" because of a misapplication of the concept of sovereignty. That's a whole other can of worms.
Dear Lady, yes a common denominator is required. We have to assert it together.
I don't think I understand what you mean by "common denominator." Do you mean "the ability to speak to each other?"
If you mean we need the ability to speak to each other, I have no idea how you are relating that to a forced path of learning (curriculum).
they should be taught how to be self sufficient ... gee, wonder why they don't teach that
Each kid gets a small cabin in the woods. They have to check in once every month. THAT's the kind of American education this generation of crybabies needs now!
You can't just throw maths at someone and expect them to get it. A curriculum is needed. You can't just start with trigonometry without first understanding geometry. And algebra is needed for all variable driven maths.
You also can't teach science without first teaching the scientific method. Without understanding that it's just experimenting for the sake of experimenting.
While there is a logical progression to math, because of it's very nature, a "curriculum" is completely unnecessary. On the contrary, it can disrupt the progression, by forcing certain concepts that a person could achieve an understanding of by another path, their own path.
There are certain concepts that must be understood to understand math. There are infinite paths to achieve that understanding.
Since you are saying this as if it were in opposition to what I said, I suggest you didn't read what I wrote, since this is almost verbatim what I said.
Once you teach the scientific method (which takes an hour to teach, and a lifetime to master) you have done all the "curriculum" required.
One hour. Done. Now it's time to get creative.
If a curriculum is setup correctly it IS a logical progression.
Disregard the second half of my comment.
If it is a logical progression, no curriculum is required.
There are many possible logical progressions.
If you force a curriculum, you have to get lucky that you have hit on a "best" one (in an average sense), and that one will almost certainly not be the best for everyone.
The word curriculum is just a word used to describe a progression. Do or do not call it that if you choose but if it acts like a duck... If it wasn't logical none of our kids would graduate. My oldest is on high honor role on the advanced schedule. My second is also on high honor role but not in the advanced schedule. Neither one of them could be doing as well as they are with a logically laid out curriculum.
I am very happy that the fixed course of study they are on is working for them. That doesn't mean a curriculum is required for learning, nor does it mean that it is the best path for learning.
I also did very well on the curriculum, at all stages of learning. I believe I would have done a thousand times better on a different path. My best teachers were the ones that had no curriculum (at least it was extremely flexible, catered to the student). The greatest teacher I ever had was so free form in her teaching it was incredible. I will never forget her (5th grade). Her entire class was learning different shit. She was a maestro. She had a greater influence on my thinking than anyone else in my life (except myself) and was one of the primary inspirations for my endeavors in science.
I also have been a teacher (formally and informally, though not on the same level as a full professor/school teacher). I have taught math, physics, chemistry, biology, philosophy, religion, hell, you name it, I've probably taught it (math more than anything). A lot of that was forced by a curriculum. The stuff that was not, but within which I had more latitude, was always more well received (and hopefully remembered) by the student.
Well, school was supposed to be about the three R’s; reading, writing and arithmetic. Since they got only one of three spellings right I suggest it’s best they stay away from other things like social science and biology.
Ain't no pork on this hot tamale.
Clone this guy instead of all the pedo puppets.
I'd be absolutely floored if this became law. Unfortunately, I've been around long enough to spot when a politician is trying to gain brownie points with constituents with a toothless bill. "Well folks I tried!"
Unfortunately, you are exactly right. The bill is just self-promotion until a legislator does some groundwork and establishes support within the party and makes a push with voters.
We voters can "amplify" a bill, but legislators have a responsibility to do more than drop one-line bills at random and claim they've done their job. They also need to maximize their own effectiveness or the public can't be blamed for not jumping on board.
why wait until december? end that shit NOW
Quickly put in updoot 667
I'd rather use the term aborted
But but but who will teach the children if we don't steal money to pay psychos to indoctrinate them?!?
Please dear Heavenly Father let this pass...but let's aim for Jul 31, 2022.
I disagree. Terminate it before the start of the Fall semester.
That would be the day before Trump steps back into the White House? Just a prediction.
Massie is a good libertarian doing libertarian things. We need more of them and less RINOs.
Be still my heart! I am all in on this one. And while you're at it get rid of the Dept or Energy and the Dept of Human Health Services and any other redundant useless Departments.
I choose that one 😄
PLEASE can this happen.
🙏
Here, here...AMEN!
One issue one bill, can we have reps mail in votes to pass this one? I know someone who works at the post office. Just declare a fake emergency like contagious hypochondria or something.
That would be a great start.
Let's Do It!
YES!
New tax code: "Taxation is theft."
Nicely done.
No reason to keep them at all. If they were useful, the semester is almost over so it’s on auto pilot. Summer is almost here so don’t need them to conspire sabotage for next year so just stop the waste. We don’t have the funds