Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyway, it seems no one is defending the highschool graduation rate as real but rather recognizing it as faking results to get around federal guidelines. But Obama is touting it as an accomplishment.
Kinda puts a bad taste in your mouth when you know the kids getting "fake passes" are generally poor\minority students.
I mean, rather than address the issue, they are pointing to fake numbers and declaring success regardless of the actual outcome in education and ability to be employable.
I did not read the article, but I did hear this on the radio. They went on to say that it is only counting rates in years since all states starting reporting the same way - only since about 2010 or 2011. So reaching a "historic" high in this case is just reaching the highest rate since about 2010.
Location: IN>Germany>ND>OH>TX>CA>Currently NoVa and a Vacation Lake House in PA
3,259 posts, read 4,332,943 times
Reputation: 13476
You guys keep mentioning Obama, but it started with George W. and the "No Child Left Behind Act" and has certainly continued with the current administration. Trust me, this is a problem that was propagated by both parties and we are stuck with the results.
You guys keep mentioning Obama, but it started with George W. and the "No Child Left Behind Act" and has certainly continued with the current administration. Trust me, this is a problem that was propagated by both parties and we are stuck with the results.
While I don't like NCLB the issue here is that they are cheating to reach the goals and any politician touting it as a success is wrong.
However when teachers have no power over students the goals are generally unfair.
Other posters followed the point. Sorry I cannot help Utah further.
Your claim was the current unemployment rate is often compared to times in which it was measured differently so I asked when that was because since 1945 people not looking for work haven't been counted. So what were you referring to?
Your claim was the current unemployment rate is often compared to times in which it was measured differently so I asked when that was because since 1945 people not looking for work haven't been counted. So what were you referring to?
Fair enough. I take responsibility for a language failure on my part. My apologies.
The formula hasn't changed but the participation rate which goes into it has.
My point being that not addressing that is a sleight of hand just like they are pulling with graduation rates.
One could argue that not openly addressing the participation rate or citing an on-level rate with participation would be a formula change since in those instances the presenter would be making an uneven comparison as if the participation rate were a constant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
