Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has come up with a sure-fire way to improving the performance of students in the low-ranked state: lower the academic standards so more students can pass.
Jindal has signed a law that creates a new and easier public school curriculum despite the fact that educators have objected that it will result in high school graduates with poor understanding of basic mathematics and written English.
Under the new law, eighth-grade students who are 15 years old and fail the mathematics and English sections of the LEAP (Louisiana Educational Assessment Program) test while to move on to the ninth grade. This reverses the prior state law that insists, quite reasonably, that you pass the eighth grade to get into the ninth grade.
This is called the “alternative diploma” program and passed the Louisiana Senate unanimously.
This is a brilliant idea. Consider all of the problems that we could solve by simply creating an “alternative” system — previously known as flunking. We could have zero drunk drivers, completely clean air, and no rickets. World hunger can be a thing of the past if Jindal simply defines a full nutritional diet as 200 calories a day.
It is all a matter of definition. No child will be left behind because no child can fail in Louisiana. Under the Jindal educational system, kids will soon be counting by thumping their feet on the ground. One does not have to know one’s ABCs — A and B will be sufficient (Cs are overblown anyway).
Of course, Jindal may be taking a lesson from Washington where failure is often redefined as success. The Bush administration repeatedly tried (and in some cases succeeded) in lowering environmental standards to show success, here and here and here.
For the full story, click here.
No sources.
Unsupported allegations.
Inherently incredible charges.
Not up to the standards of this site,
Professor Turley and others here have already discussed the constitutional question, answered on the basis of the language and purpose of Article II of the Constitution. For this Clause, we know of the concern that the founders addressed:
QUOTE
Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution states in part:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
Under the 12th amendment, vice presidents must also be natural born.
The requirement of being “natural born” appears to have been initially suggested by John Jay — who wrote a letter to George Washington on the requirement. In his July 25, 1787 letter, Jay wrote:
Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Some Framers were probably concerned with a desire among some to have a King, including some foreign princes who might rule the nation. (The theory that it was written to block Alexander Hamilton who was born in the West Indies seems apocryphal since he would have been grandfathered into eligibility at the time of the Constitution’s ratification.)
UNQUOTE http://jonathanturley.org/2008/03/06/the-supreme-redux-is-john-mccain-ineligible-to-be-president/
So the founders were worried about foreign-born leaders coming to the U.S. It was a serious concern. In the early years of the Republic, people could have sought out foreign noblemen or military leaders to take over. The natural born citizen clause prevented this option.
Obama does not present this problem. He was born in the United States. He has been a citizen since infancy. He does not fit into the class of foreign leaders, like German Princes or relative of Napoleon, who could have become U.S. President after being naturalized by Congress, that represented the danger that Jay suggested to Washington.
Vince Treacy, sorry I didn’t check back ’til now & found your reply to my natural born citizenship comment, where you say:
“there is scant tolerance for birther nonsense at this site”
but I was talking not about the whole birth certificate issue, but about the requirement that both parents be citizens for someone to be considered more than a citizen, and more than a native citizen, but a *natural born* citzen.
*However*, since you have raised the “birther” issue, just wondering, do you know if Lt Quarles Harris Jr had a chance to reveal the whereabouts of Obama’s birth certificate & other document info before he was shot in front of church? You know, Lt Harris that had just agreed to cooperate in the investigation of the presidential passport breach…the one where the 2 guys involved just happened to work for Obama’s intelligence advisor. Though Harris was shot right after he agreed to cooperate, maybe he had a chance to give someone the info.
But like I said before, we really don’t need to know if he was an Indonesian citizen or whatever…we just need to have a little finding of fact into the legislative intent behind the Article 2 natural born citizen requirement.
.
I see Republicans are now even adopting tactis from the progresssive handbook.
SEC. 7211. MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR BIRTH CERTIFICATES.
(a) Definition.–In this section, the term “birth
certificate” means a certificate of birth–
(1) for an individual (regardless of where born)–
(A) who is a citizen or national of the
United States at birth; and
(B) whose birth is registered in the United
States; and
(2) that–
(A) is issued by a Federal, State, or local
government agency or authorized custodian of
record and produced from birth records
maintained by such agency or custodian of
record; or
(B) is an authenticated copy, issued by a
Federal, State, or local government agency or
authorized custodian of record, of an original
certificate of birth issued by such agency or
custodian of record.
Here is the text
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Intelligence_Reform_and_Terrorism_Prevention_Act_of_2004
Cindy said Obama is not a natural born citizen, but that is a lie. This question has been thoroughly reviewed on this and other sites. Obama was born in the United States, in Hawaii, in 1961, and therefore is a natural born citizen. He has produced his birth certificate and posted it on the internet for all to see. He has already complied with the pending bill. The Pulitzer Prize winning journalists at Politifact.com examined it and checked with Hawaiian authorities to verify it.
The charges (made on this site) that the certificate is a forgery are false, and have even been rejected by the right wingers at WorldNetDaily.com. It meets the requirements of section 7211 the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which set national standards for birth certificates. The Certificate is a Certification of Live Birth, which is the only type of birth certificate that Hawaii now issues. It is based on a personal examination of official birth records by the responsible state officials. There is no other certificate that Hawaii officials release.
There is no requirement in the Constitution that both parents be citizens at the time of birth, and Chester Arthur’s father was not a citizen at the time of his birth.
Sorry, but there is scant tolerance for birther nonsense at this site.
Cindy,
More facts, less tin foil.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
eniobob, Obama shockingly got through to the Presidency even though he’s not a natural born citizen, but it’s possible by 2012 there will be requirements for presidential candidates to prove natural born citizenship (I know there’s a bill requiring that), & I’m thinking (but not 100% sure) that Jindal also failed to meet the requirement that *both* of his parents were citizens at the time of birth.
Gyges writes: GLSM,
I’m not sure why both you and IS seem to miss the part of my example where students who are good at stuff are rewarded with a chance to do the activity at a higher level. Maybe I didn’t emphasize it enough, but it’s pretty implicate in the wording.
Nobody is pretending that the people at the lower level are as good (either through talent or hard work) as those in the higher level, they’re just encouraged to participate. The whole of my point is that sometimes the basis for inclusiveness in school programs isn’t about avoiding the bruising of egos, but instead exposure to new experiences.
me: I got your example, I thought, but not all schools have two bands, one for the really good musicians, one for the so-so
I think all kids should be encouraged to participate and to practice. I think all kids should be given the opportunity to paint or sing or play sports. I just don’t think that at the end of the year that those who excel should be given the same ribbon as those who do not and that kids who do nothing should be rewarded for doing nothing.
IS,
Accepted.
Gyges:
I see it now “top band and everyone can join band”.
I misread this to be like first chair second chair, etc. So you are saying 2 distinct bands that have different recitals, etc.?
If you are then I tender my apologies.
IS,
Well if you’d actually address what I was saying, you wouldn’t be fighting a straw man.
Here’s a quick exercise for you: Do a scan of this page for the following words: self esteem, ego, confidence, or any other synonym you can think of.
GLSM,
I’m not sure why both you and IS seem to miss the part of my example where students who are good at stuff are rewarded with a chance to do the activity at a higher level. Maybe I didn’t emphasize it enough, but it’s pretty implicate in the wording.
Nobody is pretending that the people at the lower level are as good (either through talent or hard work) as those in the higher level, they’re just encouraged to participate. The whole of my point is that sometimes the basis for inclusiveness in school programs isn’t about avoiding the bruising of egos, but instead exposure to new experiences.
In this specific case IS and I agree that it’s all about the need for the system to appear to be successful.
Gyges:
you like to throw that straw man arguement around quite a bit. It appears that whenever you are unable to refute something you say it is a straw man arguement to dismiss it or as a refutation.
I clearly understood you to mean that all children should play in the band no matter what their ability. the only reason to allow someone that sucks to play an intsrument in a school band is to engender self esteem by way of parental and public praise during a concert.
This can lead to one of 2 things-first the child will believe they are actually good, see American Idol tryouts and watch the faces of those that clearly suck. Their parents have told them how good they are and they believe it. When reality strikes they are usually devastated and cannot believe that they actually suck. This is a false sense of self esteem unrelated to reality.
Secondly the child knows they suck and does it because the parents expect it. This does not end well either because they can grow up to be pleasers. Either way it is an evasion of reality.
The best thing to nurture self esteem is to find something a child is good at and encourage them to master it. Self esteem comes through hard work and mastery of a task(s). False self esteem leads to doctors thinking they are capable surgeons when they are not.
Gyges writes: think music programs have it right. No one says “no you can’t be in band, you’re not good enough.” They just have two (or more) levels, the talented (or willing to work harder) top band and the everyone can join band. I meet more people who when they find out that I’m a musician respond with “Oh I played ____ in highschool, I wasn’t very good, but boy did I love it.”
Competition is great, but so is understanding that you don’t have to be good at something to have a great time doing it. Deep ends and shallow ends are not mutually exclusive.
me: hmmm. kids know more about who they are and what they are capable of that adults give them credit for knowing. Talented kids don’t pretend that they can’t hit the ball, play the violin, sing or do calculus in their heads because there is a kid who can’t do that. Why encourage kids into believing that their level of ability is just as good when clearly it isn’t? why not help them find something that they can be good at or work to become better at instead of giving them a ribbon for being able to stand up and receive it?
I played piano and I sucked. my hands were too small and I could not reach an octave. and I hated practicing. years later i found the guitar and not only did I get good at it, it was portable and was a guy magnet. I would have hated having to stand up to get a ribbon for being awful at piano when everyone would know that I sucked at it.
when states like Louisiana fail to prepare students for high school what are their chances of being able to compete with students whose states gave them a better chance because they held them to higher standards? why make these kids believe that their A’s are the same as the A’s my kid earned in her high school? Why lead them on with lies?
Gyges:
“The logical extension of what I said is NOT people who dabble in medicine should be allowed to perform surgery.”
Well actually it is.
IS,
You’re right in the fact that I think schools should allow everyone to participate even if they stink at the activity. You should also note that what I supported was a tiered system, which rewards achievement while allowing those who want to try something new out the opportunity.
The logical extension of what I said is NOT people who dabble in medicine should be allowed to perform surgery. You were setting up a straw man based on what you assumed my position was. That is something you seem to enjoy doing, and something I’ll call you on 9 time out of 10.
Gyges:
the more students that pass the better the system looks.
It probably is about time to have a 2 track school system-college bound and vocational. A good many children do not come to school prepared or willing to do the work. The home environment has something to do with success in school. Parents need to take education seriously and appreciate the public school system. But since it is “free” they do not appreciate it and take it for granted. If they had to pay 5-7 k per year they would take it seriously.
The little sobs that disrupt class should be learning how to change tires or cut hair.