Yes, that picture is accurate. Bill Clinton's projected economic policies, which would have been continued if Al Gore was in office, projected a trillion dollar surplus in under ten years. In practise, Liberal economics move toward a long term surplus overall while Conservative economics lead to an immediate and indefinite deficit, as shown by Hoover and the New Deal, for instance. [img=http://greyfalcon.net/debt.png]

Yes, that picture is accurate. Bill Clinton's projected economic policies, which would have been continued if Al Gore was in office, projected a trillion dollar surplus in under ten years. In practise, Liberal economics move toward a long term surplus overall while Conservative economics lead to an immediate and indefinite deficit, as shown by Hoover and the New Deal, for instance.

FDR was the president with the New Deal who helped alleviate the economy. What truly brought the economy back better than ever was WWII though. Hoover was a pussy ass president who did absolutely shit (besides crying) when he saw the economy collapse during his term.

FDR was the president with the New Deal who helped alleviate the economy. What truly brought the economy back better than ever was WWII though. Hoover was a pussy ass president who did absolutely shit (besides crying) when he saw the economy collapse during his term.

[quote=name:rockz] America isn't fucked up, and it never will be fucked up. 100 years of shitty presidents and we're still here. [/quote] Um, I wouldn't say the ability to survive as a nation means the nation isn't "fucked up". There's been plenty of times when you could say the nation was fucked up. Great Depression? And also there have been some good presidents as well.

Quote from rockz

America isn't fucked up, and it never will be fucked up. 100 years of shitty presidents and we're still here.

Um, I wouldn't say the ability to survive as a nation means the nation isn't "fucked up". There's been plenty of times when you could say the nation was fucked up. Great Depression? And also there have been some good presidents as well.

This is just a flame war..... After reading several sides of the posts, no one is even using facts. All I wanna say is Americas "greatest presidents" were hated by the people of their time. Take a look at Carter, Lincoln heck he had have the state hating him, and a bunch of other guys are coined as doing the best for our country, and they were all hated when they were in office by at least one party.

This is just a flame war..... After reading several sides of the posts, no one is even using facts.

All I wanna say is Americas "greatest presidents" were hated by the people of their time. Take a look at Carter, Lincoln heck he had have the state hating him, and a bunch of other guys are coined as doing the best for our country, and they were all hated when they were in office by at least one party.

[quote=name:EcHo]Bush has done many great things for our country. One of them is the No Child Left Behind.[/quote] No Child Left Behind was a failure. I have [i]never[/i] heard anyone with a career in education agree with it. Firstly, it's wasting what little money schools have. States are spending $12 to $18 per student per year on testing alone (http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=272382). That's enough to buy every student a textbook, which some schools desperately need. Secondly, it's warping the curricula. In Washington state, a school year is required to have 180 school days. Take out the two weeks for testing, you have 166 days. Take out another two weeks (a minimal value) for straight reviewing, practice tests, etc., you have 142 days. The tests basically take a month out of the school year for nothing. There is also the idea of "teaching to the test", which is what teachers are being forced to do to ensure that students pass, and, in turn, the school passes. Instead of teaching useful material, they must teach what will be on the test. Thirdly, the system of consequences is completely wrong. Schools that don't meet requirements are given extra funds in an attempt to improve the scores, while schools that exceed requirements are given a yearly bonus. Also, students in schools that don't meet requirements are given the option to switch to a school that does. This system makes it financially better to either stay below the AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress), or try to improve scores as closely to the AYP as possible, so the funding lasts longer. Students in lower performing schools flock to higher performing schools, causing illegally high student counts (as in, too many students and not enough teachers). Fourth, there is no such thing as a standardized student, so standardized testing doesn't exactly make sense. Some schools have more special ed than others, and special ed going both ways, gifted and challenged. Multiple choice tests are far from the best way of gauging a large body of students' growth. Lastly, there's the war piece. No Child Left Behind requires ALL schools to supply military recruiters with the names, addresses, and home phone numbers of ALL students. How does this improve education? It doesn't. And here's the kicker: [b]We spend more money on our Middle Eastern "peacekeeping" oil party than we do on our own public education.[/b] Education has a federal budget of $68.6 billion per year (http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html), while we spend about $100 billion per year on Iraq (http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/10/news/economy/costofwar.fortune/index.htm). In 2007, we spent $4,988 on every Iraqi, 3 times their GDP. That's the equivalent of $121,000 per person here (http://zfacts.com/p/447.html). Perhaps No Child Left Behind would be effective if it actually got some money, or if it had it's ideas of improvement in order... There's my argument.

Quote from [EcHo]:]

Bush has done many great things for our country. One of them is the No Child Left Behind.

No Child Left Behind was a failure. I have never heard anyone with a career in education agree with it. Firstly, it's wasting what little money schools have. States are spending $12 to $18 per student per year on testing alone (http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=272382). That's enough to buy every student a textbook, which some schools desperately need.

Secondly, it's warping the curricula. In Washington state, a school year is required to have 180 school days. Take out the two weeks for testing, you have 166 days. Take out another two weeks (a minimal value) for straight reviewing, practice tests, etc., you have 142 days. The tests basically take a month out of the school year for nothing. There is also the idea of "teaching to the test", which is what teachers are being forced to do to ensure that students pass, and, in turn, the school passes. Instead of teaching useful material, they must teach what will be on the test.

Thirdly, the system of consequences is completely wrong. Schools that don't meet requirements are given extra funds in an attempt to improve the scores, while schools that exceed requirements are given a yearly bonus. Also, students in schools that don't meet requirements are given the option to switch to a school that does. This system makes it financially better to either stay below the AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress), or try to improve scores as closely to the AYP as possible, so the funding lasts longer. Students in lower performing schools flock to higher performing schools, causing illegally high student counts (as in, too many students and not enough teachers).

Fourth, there is no such thing as a standardized student, so standardized testing doesn't exactly make sense. Some schools have more special ed than others, and special ed going both ways, gifted and challenged. Multiple choice tests are far from the best way of gauging a large body of students' growth.

Lastly, there's the war piece. No Child Left Behind requires ALL schools to supply military recruiters with the names, addresses, and home phone numbers of ALL students. How does this improve education? It doesn't. And here's the kicker: We spend more money on our Middle Eastern "peacekeeping" oil party than we do on our own public education. Education has a federal budget of $68.6 billion per year (http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html), while we spend about $100 billion per year on Iraq (http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/10/news/economy/costofwar.fortune/index.htm). In 2007, we spent $4,988 on every Iraqi, 3 times their GDP. That's the equivalent of $121,000 per person here (http://zfacts.com/p/447.html).

Perhaps No Child Left Behind would be effective if it actually got some money, or if it had it's ideas of improvement in order... There's my argument.

[quote=name:FatalException][quote=name:EcHo]Bush has done many great things for our country. One of them is the No Child Left Behind.[/quote] No Child Left Behind was a failure. I have [i]never[/i] heard anyone with a career in education agree with it. Firstly, it's wasting what little money schools have. States are spending $12 to $18 per student per year on testing alone (http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=272382). That's enough to buy every student a textbook, which some schools desperately need. Secondly, it's warping the curricula. In Washington state, a school year is required to have 180 school days. Take out the two weeks for testing, you have 166 days. Take out another two weeks (a minimal value) for straight reviewing, practice tests, etc., you have 142 days. The tests basically take a month out of the school year for nothing. There is also the idea of "teaching to the test", which is what teachers are being forced to do to ensure that students pass, and, in turn, the school passes. Instead of teaching useful material, they must teach what will be on the test. Thirdly, the system of consequences is completely wrong. Schools that don't meet requirements are given extra funds in an attempt to improve the scores, while schools that exceed requirements are given a yearly bonus. Also, students in schools that don't meet requirements are given the option to switch to a school that does. This system makes it financially better to either stay below the AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress), or try to improve scores as closely to the AYP as possible, so the funding lasts longer. Students in lower performing schools flock to higher performing schools, causing illegally high student counts (as in, too many students and not enough teachers). Fourth, there is no such thing as a standardized student, so standardized testing doesn't exactly make sense. Some schools have more special ed than others, and special ed going both ways, gifted and challenged. Multiple choice tests are far from the best way of gauging a large body of students' growth. Lastly, there's the war piece. No Child Left Behind requires ALL schools to supply military recruiters with the names, addresses, and home phone numbers of ALL students. How does this improve education? It doesn't. And here's the kicker: [b]We spend more money on our Middle Eastern "peacekeeping" oil party than we do on our own public education.[/b] Education has a federal budget of $68.6 billion per year (http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html), while we spend about $100 billion per year on Iraq (http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/10/news/economy/costofwar.fortune/index.htm). In 2007, we spent $4,988 on every Iraqi, 3 times their GDP. That's the equivalent of $121,000 per person here (http://zfacts.com/p/447.html). Perhaps No Child Left Behind would be effective if it actually got some money, or if it had it's ideas of improvement in order... There's my argument.[/quote] Maybe if "No Child Left Behind" made some money we could actually have a better educated country than some believe. Ex., Echo. I agree with what FatalException is saying that by which No Child Left Behind seemed like a good plan before, but in the end it failed and sucked ass, costing us more money than earned.

Quote from FatalException

Quote from [EcHo]:]

Bush has done many great things for our country. One of them is the No Child Left Behind.

No Child Left Behind was a failure. I have never heard anyone with a career in education agree with it. Firstly, it's wasting what little money schools have. States are spending $12 to $18 per student per year on testing alone (http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=272382). That's enough to buy every student a textbook, which some schools desperately need.

Secondly, it's warping the curricula. In Washington state, a school year is required to have 180 school days. Take out the two weeks for testing, you have 166 days. Take out another two weeks (a minimal value) for straight reviewing, practice tests, etc., you have 142 days. The tests basically take a month out of the school year for nothing. There is also the idea of "teaching to the test", which is what teachers are being forced to do to ensure that students pass, and, in turn, the school passes. Instead of teaching useful material, they must teach what will be on the test.

Thirdly, the system of consequences is completely wrong. Schools that don't meet requirements are given extra funds in an attempt to improve the scores, while schools that exceed requirements are given a yearly bonus. Also, students in schools that don't meet requirements are given the option to switch to a school that does. This system makes it financially better to either stay below the AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress), or try to improve scores as closely to the AYP as possible, so the funding lasts longer. Students in lower performing schools flock to higher performing schools, causing illegally high student counts (as in, too many students and not enough teachers).

Fourth, there is no such thing as a standardized student, so standardized testing doesn't exactly make sense. Some schools have more special ed than others, and special ed going both ways, gifted and challenged. Multiple choice tests are far from the best way of gauging a large body of students' growth.

Lastly, there's the war piece. No Child Left Behind requires ALL schools to supply military recruiters with the names, addresses, and home phone numbers of ALL students. How does this improve education? It doesn't. And here's the kicker: We spend more money on our Middle Eastern "peacekeeping" oil party than we do on our own public education. Education has a federal budget of $68.6 billion per year (http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html), while we spend about $100 billion per year on Iraq (http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/10/news/economy/costofwar.fortune/index.htm). In 2007, we spent $4,988 on every Iraqi, 3 times their GDP. That's the equivalent of $121,000 per person here (http://zfacts.com/p/447.html).

Perhaps No Child Left Behind would be effective if it actually got some money, or if it had it's ideas of improvement in order... There's my argument.

Maybe if "No Child Left Behind" made some money we could actually have a better educated country than some believe. Ex., Echo. I agree with what FatalException is saying that by which No Child Left Behind seemed like a good plan before, but in the end it failed and sucked ass, costing us more money than earned.

"No Child Left Behind" is an abomination. Bush is a moron with no business drafting education policy. My girlfriend is a teacher. "No Child Left Behind" forces teachers to focus on passing a [i]test[/i], teaching children only what they need to know to pass, because schools are afraid if they fail their already-underfunded school will lose money. It's a sick joke. Teachers [i]have[/i] to stick to the standards, offering no flexibility to teachers to give students what they need to know in life. The test only assesses math, reading, and writing. Science and other subjects are waylaid as a result. Teachers have to go fast through all the standards, too. Students who are low or don't learn as quickly can't learn all the material at such a pace. Gifted students don't get a chance to excel [i]because[/i] teachers have to teach the standards. When schools lose money, it takes away opportunities from the students, denying them the supplies and resources they need. Textbooks, computers, afterschool programs, field trips, none of these are free. It also reduces the already diminutive pay of teachers, who have to go through years of expensive education and little-to-no-pay student teaching just to become certified. Not everyone can afford that, and loans create a burden of debt on many teachers. Without adequate pay, good teachers cannot afford to remain teachers. Schools lose teachers as a result, and without qualified replacements schools must lower their standards on who can teach. Places like Arizona, Mississippi, Florida, and California are all desperate for teachers. Charter schools have sprung up to compensate, employing teachers who are only "highly-qualified", meaning they have a college degree, but not in education, and their experience with children may be limited. This trend puts a question mark above the quality of instruction a child is liable to receive. With fewer teachers to cope with the birth rate and immigration of our country, schools regularly have to overload their classrooms with the maximum amount of students allowed, depriving those very students of individualized attention (especially needed when they don't get it at home, which is becoming all too common with poor parenting) and exponentially increasing the stress and difficulty of classroom management for teachers. Teachers deserve so much more than they’re given, both in pay and in respect. They do [i]so much[/i] work for little in return. My girlfriend spent $1,000+ of her own money on a play she was directing after school for three months. The play turned out great, but she was not reimbursed a dime for either her expenses nor time. She has spent countless dollars just buying supplies for children whose parents couldn't afford to buy them things as simple as notebooks, pens, paper, etc. A school day may only be 6-7 hours, but teachers easily spend 12+ hours a day grading papers, writing lesson plans, attending faculty meetings, and so much more. Not only do they manage 20-40 children simultaneously (and essentially our future), but they also have to deal with the parents (I hate it when parents use school as a crutch and scapegoat to mask their own incompetence – at the school I work for one woman said about her child, "I'm not his babysitter.") and an incomprehensible amount of red tape. One example from a school my girlfriend worked for is if a child is making a disruptive noise in class, you are not allowed to single them out, as it "embarrasses them". Instead, you are supposed to address the entire class, something along the lines of, "Remember class, we are not to make noises". If two children are fighting, you say to everyone that fighting is not allowed, rather than refer to the two students by name. It's ridiculous, but schools are deathly afraid of being sued (yes, someone somewhere actually sued for that, and even if unsuccessful there are still lawyer fees needed to fight the case). Schools simply cannot afford to lose [i]any[/i] funds, or something in their program has to go. That is why there is so much red tape on what teachers can and cannot do, say, imply, or even think, and contributes to teacher turnover. Bush is terrifyingly ignorant on education. He has created a system that assumes so much about the causes of failing grades, and his "solution" elicits a vicious downward spiral that, in the very end, only hurts the students. Bush is shaping a generation trained only to take a test. That's sad. No experienced educator supports Bush's "No Child Left Behind", and with good reason.

"No Child Left Behind" is an abomination. Bush is a moron with no business drafting education policy. My girlfriend is a teacher. "No Child Left Behind" forces teachers to focus on passing a test, teaching children only what they need to know to pass, because schools are afraid if they fail their already-underfunded school will lose money.

It's a sick joke. Teachers have to stick to the standards, offering no flexibility to teachers to give students what they need to know in life. The test only assesses math, reading, and writing. Science and other subjects are waylaid as a result. Teachers have to go fast through all the standards, too. Students who are low or don't learn as quickly can't learn all the material at such a pace. Gifted students don't get a chance to excel because teachers have to teach the standards.

When schools lose money, it takes away opportunities from the students, denying them the supplies and resources they need. Textbooks, computers, afterschool programs, field trips, none of these are free.

It also reduces the already diminutive pay of teachers, who have to go through years of expensive education and little-to-no-pay student teaching just to become certified. Not everyone can afford that, and loans create a burden of debt on many teachers. Without adequate pay, good teachers cannot afford to remain teachers. Schools lose teachers as a result, and without qualified replacements schools must lower their standards on who can teach. Places like Arizona, Mississippi, Florida, and California are all desperate for teachers. Charter schools have sprung up to compensate, employing teachers who are only "highly-qualified", meaning they have a college degree, but not in education, and their experience with children may be limited. This trend puts a question mark above the quality of instruction a child is liable to receive.

With fewer teachers to cope with the birth rate and immigration of our country, schools regularly have to overload their classrooms with the maximum amount of students allowed, depriving those very students of individualized attention (especially needed when they don't get it at home, which is becoming all too common with poor parenting) and exponentially increasing the stress and difficulty of classroom management for teachers.

Teachers deserve so much more than they’re given, both in pay and in respect. They do so much work for little in return. My girlfriend spent $1,000+ of her own money on a play she was directing after school for three months. The play turned out great, but she was not reimbursed a dime for either her expenses nor time. She has spent countless dollars just buying supplies for children whose parents couldn't afford to buy them things as simple as notebooks, pens, paper, etc. A school day may only be 6-7 hours, but teachers easily spend 12+ hours a day grading papers, writing lesson plans, attending faculty meetings, and so much more. Not only do they manage 20-40 children simultaneously (and essentially our future), but they also have to deal with the parents (I hate it when parents use school as a crutch and scapegoat to mask their own incompetence – at the school I work for one woman said about her child, "I'm not his babysitter.") and an incomprehensible amount of red tape.

One example from a school my girlfriend worked for is if a child is making a disruptive noise in class, you are not allowed to single them out, as it "embarrasses them". Instead, you are supposed to address the entire class, something along the lines of, "Remember class, we are not to make noises". If two children are fighting, you say to everyone that fighting is not allowed, rather than refer to the two students by name. It's ridiculous, but schools are deathly afraid of being sued (yes, someone somewhere actually sued for that, and even if unsuccessful there are still lawyer fees needed to fight the case). Schools simply cannot afford to lose any funds, or something in their program has to go. That is why there is so much red tape on what teachers can and cannot do, say, imply, or even think, and contributes to teacher turnover.

Bush is terrifyingly ignorant on education. He has created a system that assumes so much about the causes of failing grades, and his "solution" elicits a vicious downward spiral that, in the very end, only hurts the students. Bush is shaping a generation trained only to take a test. That's sad. No experienced educator supports Bush's "No Child Left Behind", and with good reason.

[quote]"Technically", it were the Native Americans that discovered America, not Christopher Columbus.[/quote] Uhg, my mistake. So 22, 000 years ago, crossing an icebridge. GAWD. Sidenote: I can't toggle multiquotes, is something wrong?

Quote

"Technically", it were the Native Americans that discovered America, not Christopher Columbus.

Uhg, my mistake.
So 22, 000 years ago, crossing an icebridge. GAWD.

Sidenote: I can't toggle multiquotes, is something wrong?

Christopher Columbus discovered America. The natives didn't discover it, since they didn't ever tell anyone. Leif was probably the first European there, but nothing came of it, otherwise Canada would be speaking three languages. I don't like Bush currently because he's IN CHINA, NOT DOING HIS JOB. [quote=name:devilesk]Um, I wouldn't say the ability to survive as a nation means the nation isn't "fucked up". There's been plenty of times when you could say the nation was fucked up. Great Depression? And also there have been some good presidents as well.[/quote] When I think of fucked up, I think of complete anarchy and possibly governmental collapse. The Great Depression was fucked up. The Civil War was fucked up. I never said a thing about either not being fucked up. If they do become that fucked up again (which they won't), we'll still recover with ease. 100 years of shitty presidents. It's kind of like how my parents have been married for 15 marvelous years, and celebrated their 27th wedding anniversary last year.

Christopher Columbus discovered America. The natives didn't discover it, since they didn't ever tell anyone. Leif was probably the first European there, but nothing came of it, otherwise Canada would be speaking three languages.

I don't like Bush currently because he's IN CHINA, NOT DOING HIS JOB.

Quote from (U)devilesk

Um, I wouldn't say the ability to survive as a nation means the nation isn't "fucked up". There's been plenty of times when you could say the nation was fucked up. Great Depression? And also there have been some good presidents as well.

When I think of fucked up, I think of complete anarchy and possibly governmental collapse. The Great Depression was fucked up. The Civil War was fucked up. I never said a thing about either not being fucked up. If they do become that fucked up again (which they won't), we'll still recover with ease.

100 years of shitty presidents. It's kind of like how my parents have been married for 15 marvelous years, and celebrated their 27th wedding anniversary last year.

The point is, Native Americans were there first and and discovered America long before Christopher Columbus. Plus you're going to have to blame Columbus of misconception by calling the Native Americans 'Indians', meaning he already seen people living there before him and thinking the place is India, not naming it "The New World" aka America. :-_-:

The point is, Native Americans were there first and and discovered America long before Christopher Columbus. Plus you're going to have to blame Columbus of misconception by calling the Native Americans 'Indians', meaning he already seen people living there before him and thinking the place is India, not naming it "The New World" aka America.

[quote]One of them is the No Child Left Behind[/quote] Oh no you didnt. No child left behind doesnt motivate, nor punish the layperson and low achiever, why should harder workig students get punished for the Faults and Laziness of the ones who dont give a shit? It punishes those who wish to achieve, who are surrounded by idiots. It punishes teachers, and principals and staffperson. No child left behind is an abomination, i hope mckain or obama gets rid of it.

Quote

One of them is the No Child Left Behind

Oh no you didnt. No child left behind doesnt motivate, nor punish the layperson and low achiever, why should harder workig students get punished for the Faults and Laziness of the ones who dont give a shit? It punishes those who wish to achieve, who are surrounded by idiots. It punishes teachers, and principals and staffperson. No child left behind is an abomination, i hope mckain or obama gets rid of it.

Oh god, everything EcHo says makes me facepalm.

Oh god, everything EcHo says makes me facepalm.

Maybe he was joking? Admit it, Echo!

Maybe he was joking? Admit it, Echo!

[quote=name:Centreri]Maybe he was joking? Admit it, Echo![/quote] No he is not. He's as serious since the other praising George W. Bush topic and he admits he is a republican.

Quote from Centreri

Maybe he was joking? Admit it, Echo!

No he is not. He's as serious since the other praising George W. Bush topic and he admits he is a republican.

When did I admit that I was a republican? Read, I never said I was. I am not in any political affliction.

When did I admit that I was a republican? Read, I never said I was. I am not in any political affliction.

I think its quite silly to pick sides O.o .... its understandable if you are a canditate, only because the vast majority of votors are either red or blue. i support a wide range of things, some liberal... some conservative... w/e [quote=name:KrayZee][quote=name:Centreri]Maybe he was joking? Admit it, Echo![/quote] No he is not. He's as serious since the other praising George W. Bush topic and he admits he is a republican.[/quote] Admited? whats that? lol, it shouldnt have to be something that you "admit"... this really is a flame war

I think its quite silly to pick sides O.o .... its understandable if you are a canditate, only because the vast majority of votors are either red or blue. i support a wide range of things, some liberal... some conservative... w/e

Quote from KrayZee

Quote from Centreri

Maybe he was joking? Admit it, Echo!

No he is not. He's as serious since the other praising George W. Bush topic and he admits he is a republican.

Admited? whats that? lol, it shouldnt have to be something that you "admit"... this really is a flame war

True that, I base my votes on overall averages. But this year I'm not voting, even though it's the first time I can.

True that, I base my votes on overall averages. But this year I'm not voting, even though it's the first time I can.

[quote=name:EcHo]When did I admit that I was a republican? Read, I never said I was. I am not in any political affliction.[/quote] [url=http://www.staredit.net/2483/]Calling Liberals terrorists?[/url]

Quote from [EcHo]:]

When did I admit that I was a republican? Read, I never said I was. I am not in any political affliction.

Calling Liberals terrorists?

Here is an example of a question asked several times in a 5th grade AIMS test. "Which of the following is a valid generalization based on the selection?" Who the hell writes this stuff? We here might understand the question, but try asking that to a 10 year old, much less require them to read it and actually understand what it wants.

Here is an example of a question asked several times in a 5th grade AIMS test.

"Which of the following is a valid generalization based on the selection?"

Who the hell writes this stuff? We here might understand the question, but try asking that to a 10 year old, much less require them to read it and actually understand what it wants.

[quote=name:Hercanic]Here is an example of a question asked several times in a 5th grade AIMS test. "Which of the following is a valid generalization based on the selection?" Who the hell writes this stuff? We here might understand the question, but try asking that to a 10 year old, much less require them to read it and actually understand what it wants.[/quote] That's a easy question for a fifth grader, it's just big words. Only low rated Elementary Schools would find that hard.

Quote from Hercanic

Here is an example of a question asked several times in a 5th grade AIMS test.

"Which of the following is a valid generalization based on the selection?"

Who the hell writes this stuff? We here might understand the question, but try asking that to a 10 year old, much less require them to read it and actually understand what it wants.

That's a easy question for a fifth grader, it's just big words. Only low rated Elementary Schools would find that hard.