SOTU?

They counted parent income against me, and I moved out when I was 13 and had my own place at 16. It's a ridiculous system.

In my view, that's exactly the type of initiative that we, as a country, should reward and enable. Self-dependence should never be a burden, but our government has made it a spectacular challenge for many.

If you don't mind my asking, why did you move out at such a young age?
 
Problem is I could that process being abused. How does one prove that they are in fact living on their own without any assistance? It seems like it would be an involved back and forth process. Whose to say said person is receiving cash from their parents?
 
The amount of Federal money for most school districts is less than 10% of their total revenue. It's almost exclusively limited to aid for children with disabilities and for children in poverty. If you have gripes with your local school, the problems can be largely traced to state and local government in terms of both funding and instructional choices. You still might want to send your kids to a private school, but the Federal government doesn't have a whole lot to do with the conditions in public schools.

It's tragic that the Federal government feels as though it has the prerogative to mandate curriculum standards (and methods of ensuring said standards are being followed), but won't enforce the same level of control upon areas such as funding, teacher certification/enrichment, administrative structuring.
 
Problem is I could that process being abused. How does one prove that they are in fact living on their own without any assistance? It seems like it would be an involved back and forth process. Whose to say said person is receiving cash from their parents?

There are abuses in every system. The welfare system is the best example ever. Penalties need to be stiff, repercussions swift.
 
It's tragic that the Federal government feels as though it has the prerogative to mandate curriculum standards (and methods of ensuring said standards are being followed), but won't enforce the same level of control upon areas such as funding, teacher certification/enrichment, administrative structuring.

why you say tragic ?

My understanding is Fed mandates are to insure a level of consistency from state to state. Not defending them but their involvement like 50 says is minimal
 
Problem is I could that process being abused. How does one prove that they are in fact living on their own without any assistance? It seems like it would be an involved back and forth process. Whose to say said person is receiving cash from their parents?

Under the current system, it's ****ing impossible (or at least it was when I tried).
 
why you say tragic ?

My understanding is Fed mandates are to insure a level of consistency from state to state. Not defending them but their involvement like 50 says is minimal

I don't really see how enforcing a curriculum with annually measured standards (for both students AND teachers) is a minimally invasive process. I'm not against it, per se, but I wish that the government would take a top-down approach with the education system instead of obsessively tweaking things like skills assessment and school lunches.
 
In my view, that's exactly the type of initiative that we, as a country, should reward and enable. Self-dependence should never be a burden, but our government has made it a spectacular challenge for many.

If you don't mind my asking, why did you move out at such a young age?

Asshole stepfather.
 
Welfare rather than defense contracting or banking ? Interesting.

Welfare is a good example due to its largesse and universal availability. My point is that it still 'works' (although quite negligibly in recent years) despite the multitudes who abuse it.
 
How does one prove that they are in fact living on their own without any assistance?

Emancipation as a minor is about the only way, really. College is usually the last thing on your mind when you're in that position, though.
 
It's tragic that the Federal government feels as though it has the prerogative to mandate curriculum standards (and methods of ensuring said standards are being followed), but won't enforce the same level of control upon areas such as funding, teacher certification/enrichment, administrative structuring.

I generally agree. 57 is also right. It's about consistency between the states (and also as states administer standards to develop consistency within states), but the whole Goals 2000/NCLB/RttT enterprise has created a ton of paperwork and requirement of considerable staff time to very little net effect.
 
“Meet Joni Ernst, The Republican Senator Responding to Obama’s State of the Union Address,” offered ABC News(1/20/15).

http://billmoyers.com/2015/01/26/corporate-media-dont-want-know-joni-ernst/
/////////

moving people off of their agricultural land and consolidating them into city centers, and then telling them that you don’t have property rights anymore. These are all things that the UN is behind, and it’s bad for the United States and bad for families here in the state of Iowa.
 
Back
Top