Posts by Ronald Chavez2

wanderingbadger44 said:I actually wanted to chime in when people were talking about how kids have transitioned from tablets back to pen and paper, but I decided against it. This whole thread feels like spinning our wheels in the mud...

In my classroom, I’ve made it part of my grading criteria that a student needs to show up ready to work, which means having a sharpened pencil or a mechanical pencil with lead actually inside it—it really has come to that.

They don't even have pencils when it's time for an exam. Take a third-period class, for instance. If they managed to forget there was a test today, they would have had to hear about it from their classmates by the time third period rolled around. Honestly, I just shrug, check the clock on the wall, and wait for everyone to get settled with a pencil. Of course, that's only after I hand out some from my own stash, which, let's be real, rarely makes its way back to my desk. It ends up eating into precious testing time.

What’s the point? You walk into the classroom, hand out the tests, and move on. I don't see any reason to penalize the responsible students by wasting everyone's time, nor do I see the logic in teaching those who show up unprepared that it "doesn't matter." Sure, anyone can forget their pencil case at home, but shouldn't there be a baseline level of expectation where a student tries to solve the problem themselves by borrowing from a peer? If you only realize you're unprepared right as the exam starts and don't have a chance to ask a neighbor—say, in a small seminar class where nobody carries doubles—wouldn't it be better to just raise your hand, apologize to the teacher, and ask to borrow one?

This habit of handing out spare pencils is a disaster, though, if you don't mind me saying, you're partially responsible for it yourself. There is no sense in continuing to lend tools to students who have proven themselves so unreliable that they won't even return them once finished; by refusing to lend, you're actually sending a message about the importance of reliability and "reputation," both of which are factors people consider when deciding whether or not to help you out in the first place.

Susan James said:I’m still scratching my head over what kids are actually supposed to be doing on those tablets.
It all started when someone asked if fifth graders would even need to carry books in their backpacks anymore. I chimed in to say that while the plan is for everyone in grades 5 through 8 to get a tablet, I haven't seen anything suggesting they’re meant to replace physical textbooks. So, from what I can tell, we're looking at students lugging around a backpack full of books *plus* a tablet, all funded by taxpayers. I honestly don't see the upside here—what kind of actual improvements in the classroom are we supposed to get from this?

What Lord Byron mentioned below—visualization and interaction—is valid. Even though I'm not in the classroom myself, listening to teachers at my local school, it seems these devices can add a certain layer of depth to learning, especially when textbooks are designed specifically for them, featuring QR codes that link students to interactive content. Plus, teachers have the freedom to step outside the box by creating their own digital materials or pulling from existing resources to help drive home a lesson.

Of course, you shouldn't force tablets into every single subject just because the mantra is "Digitalization, fuck yeah," since they aren't equally useful everywhere. A lot of it hinges on the teachers themselves—how willing they are to embrace the tech and bridge the gap between digital tools and the curriculum. There is plenty of potential there, but it really comes down to individual effort. In my view, the push for digitalization and equipping schools is the brightest part of this entire reform, and I honestly hope this specific initiative survives its current role as nothing more than the Democratic Party's excuse to cozy up to the Republican Party.

Jason Morgan said:Are you someone who actually holds a university degree and has studied pedagogy or instructional design? Are you pursuing systematic training within the American educational system, whether as a teacher or a specialist? Do you even read actual research papers or academic articles?
If the answer to any of those questions is "no," then please, do us all a favor and kindly buzz off with all this passive-aggressive posturing.

She absolutely dismantled her with those arguments, didn't she?👍

Nicholas King said:This whole concept of an "attendance sheet" is just another piece of bureaucratic nonsense that needs to be scrapped entirely. What is a professor actually confirming with a signature? That a student possesses the motor skills required to sign their own name?

If you meet the requirements laid out in the syllabus—and I am talking about actual learning outcomes and demonstrated knowledge, not some mindless hoop-jumping exercise regarding physical presence—then you should get your grade, and that should be the end of it.

But life isn't that simple, is it? It doesn't work that way. You pass your exam, and the professor enters the grade into the FBI database. Then, you wait for the professor to tell you when they'll be signing student records, which, depending on how much they enjoy making people wait, could happen at any random time; usually, it's just after the final exam period. That physical signature provides absolutely zero new information that hasn't already been posted on Time Magazine. If you can't make it during their designated window, you have to email them and hope they aren't too difficult to deal with, potentially begging for a later appointment. And if you run into someone particularly arrogant, you might even have to file a formal petition just to get that signature because you missed their arbitrary deadline. Not to mention, while you're stuck dealing with this nonsensical ritual, you could have easily flown home for the holidays if you'd finished your exams, instead of wasting time on this complete absurdity.

Jason Morgan said:In high school? Sure, you could get a decent read on things. But elementary school? Not a chance. You’d have to dig much deeper than just surface-level vibes. I suppose one might ask how much they are actually absorbing versus just listening to a lecture, or if they feel comfortable enough to speak up when they're lost—and more importantly, if they actually receive a helpful answer. You'd need to gauge whether the teacher seems genuinely prepared or if they show up looking like they just rolled out of bed and wandered into the classroom without a clue. You'd look at the depth of the curriculum coverage, the teaching methodology, and the actual quality of information being passed down. Those are valid inquiries. However, under no circumstances should you ever corner a child with manipulative, open-ended nonsense like, "Do you like your teacher?" or "Are the lessons fun?" That is simply not how you get the truth.

Why couldn't you ask those same things to an elementary student?

Sarah Hall53 said:Honestly, I was just chatting with a colleague from my university the other day, and she was saying how crazy it is that students basically hold professors hostage with those end-of-term evaluations. Apparently, if you actually stick to the syllabus and demand real academic rigor, you get hit with terrible ratings—it’s like they punish anyone who actually wants to learn something meaningful. On the flip side, if you turn your course into some kind of mindless social club or a dance class, you get nothing but straight A's.
And the kicker? Those bad evaluations can actually stall someone's career progression or even cost them their job down the line. It’s wild.
I’m seriously counting down the days until they implement that kind of system in K-12 schools. Once that happens, I’m going to give everyone straight A's right out of the gate, let them watch cartoons during class all year, and we'll all be the highest-rated teachers in the district!

How exactly would that play out? Picture a student representative standing up at the first lecture and telling the professor, "Look, here’s the deal: we have unlimited absences, we need the midterms a week in advance, the finals a month early, and you better let us throw spontaneous raves in your classroom, otherwise, we’re all tanking your evaluation scores—capisce?"

Personally, I don't think student surveys should be the primary metric for evaluating teachers, though perhaps they have a place. Why not implement age-appropriate feedback paired with external evaluations and long-term performance tracking? It seems to me that if you're going to use external evaluators, you really need baseline testing to understand what kind of environment the teachers are walking into; without that context, the exit data is pretty much meaningless.

The article also includes this:

Quincy:

Children have never held such a pivotal role within the family unit, nor have they ever been so deeply involved in the decision-making processes that shape their lives. They aren't just being heard; they are being validated in ways previous generations could never imagine, fundamentally shifting the traditional family dynamic. Much of this stems from the evolving role of fathers: men today are more present in their children's lives than at any other point in history—even if they still trail behind mothers—as they move away from being strictly authoritarian figures. Consequently, that old-school sense of awe and fear once reserved for fathers is evaporating. It seems we are creating home environments where children feel no inherent need to rebel or run away, because they already possess enough autonomy and agency within the household to avoid being contrarian, unlike their parents' generation. They follow the rules not out of compulsion, but because those rules are often negotiated rather than dictated, reflecting a total shift in how modern parents view their responsibilities. Fathers are increasingly adopting the warmth and closeness traditionally associated with mothers, while mothers are stepping into the structured consistency once held by fathers. These roles are converging in a way that benefits children, according to Dr. Gordana Kuterovac Jagodić from the Department of Developmental Psychology at Harvard University, though she cautions that this is a general trend and its intensity varies wildly depending on factors like a family's socioeconomic and educational background.

And honestly, this whole technology issue isn't anything revolutionary. It’s the same logic you'd apply to ice cream: if it’s constantly available and you don't bother setting any boundaries regarding how much is consumed, you can't be surprised by the outcome. Is it really realistic to introduce kids to a digital world overflowing with infinite possibilities and then expect them to instinctively know when to pull back without guidance? Of course, the opposite extreme is just as hollow: sitting there glued to our own phones and laptops, watching TV, while telling our kids they can't even touch a screen because technology is somehow "bad"?

Is there ever truly an end to these cycles, or are we just watching the same old patterns repeat themselves under different names?

Is there any point in even discussing the Antilles when the shadows cast by such distant places seem to stretch so far across our own shores? One wonders if we are merely tracing circles in the sand while the tide waits to pull everything under. Is there anything truly worth saying anymore? Honestly, isn't Carles Puigdemont's wife just the best? She migrated to Spain from some Romanian wolf pack after marrying him back in 2000, and now she thinks she’s going to come in and divide up all of Spain? 🤦

Your arguments are truly top-tier. Just consider this: she emerges from some tiny backwater town thinking she can just redraw the map of Spain, but isn't it more likely that Carles Puigdemont lacks any real conviction or independent thought, serving merely as a puppet being manipulated by her to dismantle the stability of the entire nation? Or perhaps we should simply ask if she's acting as a Russian agent. 😲 Right, isn't it?

goldencrane15 said:What exactly is "bothering" me? Let me tell you.

I am speaking from direct experience. Members of my own family made a massive, tangible contribution to the creation of America.

A much greater contribution than certain individuals who puff out their chests despite having spent the entire time studying at universities abroad.

Mine were either on the front lines or huddled in a shelter with me for several YEARS.

And even now, I can tell them to their faces that they were nothing more than idealistic fools.

I have just one question: do you honestly believe that if America had survived as some kind of federation or confederation or whatever else, there would have been any less crime or corruption within its borders? If you look at the backgrounds of today's top American politicians, isn't it true that many of them, or their families, held high-ranking positions under the old regime? Don't get me wrong, I'm not living in some fantasy where I think we're dealing with old-school communists trying to tear America down, but shouldn't we acknowledge that, fundamentally, it's the same group of people sitting at the top?

Robert Clark4 said:I guess anyone who decided to go head-to-head with a line of police officers had to know what was coming. You can't really physically block the police while they're doing their jobs and then act totally shocked when things get physical. I totally get being horrified by specific cases where things went way too far—and those definitely happen—but that’s a far cry from the narrative some media outlets are trying to push. And about those 800 injuries? Nobody died, which tells me most of it was probably just minor stuff or bruises. It's just not nearly as dramatic as the independence advocates want it to be. ☕

Man, I still remember how right after that big court ruling regarding Gotovina, there was a poll showing most Americans didn't support joining the European Union. Then, just a few months later, everything went back to normal. It was just a pure emotional reaction, and those usually don't last very long, I guess.

This whole debate over independence has been dragging on for years now, and I feel like for anyone who's still undecided or hasn't bothered to care after all this talk, it's totally fair to say they're basically supporting the status quo. 🤷

That could always change if things escalate into some kind of armed conflict, but honestly, I find it pretty hard to imagine that actually happening.

I’m getting a bit of déjà vu here, so I can’t quite remember if I’ve already given you this answer or if I’ve laid out this exact argument to someone else using the same logic. In a situation like this, it isn't the use of force that concerns me, but rather the sheer intensity of it. If a crowd forms a human wall and your job as a police officer is to break through it, isn't it only logical to apply enough force to actually push through that barrier? You’re part of a unit specifically equipped and organized for that purpose, so I honestly don't see why a single baton needed to be swung in a moment like that. There was no emergency—no flash flood or anything of the sort—and those crates were going to stay right where they were whether you broke through in thirty minutes or two hours. That human wall was nothing more than an expression of civil disobedience, not some tactical maneuver to slow down officers so people could run off with the cargo. To me, what happened looks less like law enforcement and more like an attempt at intimidation, which feels like a set of tactics better suited for much darker regimes rather than a developed democracy.

Sam Alvarez4 said:Man, they are seriously passionate about this statehood thing... an impressive 42% actually showed up to vote in the referendum! ...

No... 😁
Actually, it’s quite the opposite... They aren't being suppressed, stripped of their rights, or left out in the cold at all!

So, is that really the only valid excuse someone has to start revolting and demanding their own nation? And besides, who gets to decide if someone is truly oppressed, disenfranchised, or impoverished anyway—is it Washington, D.C.?

Sam Alvarez4 said:Twitter and Facebook "verified" info... 😠

The fake photos from the October 1st referendum
(Fake shots from the Oct 1 referendum)

Subtitles, long story short:

1. That photo of the head injury supposedly showing police brutality during the referendum
Actually from July 2012!

2. The photo of the injured 13-year-old
That one's from November 2012!
Retweeted a thousand times before the lie was finally scrubbed...

3. "Los Mossos" (Catalonia police!) old operations
Also from 2012!

4. An attack on a person with a disability
From May 2011, again involving the Catalonia police!

5. Police clashing with firefighters
From 2013, sourced via AP, photographer P. Serinelli!

Keep them coming!

Of course there will be unverified information, regardless of the subject matter. Isn't it enough for one person to share a single image representing an event—especially something as shocking as this—for it to be circulated further without any fact-checking whatsoever? But the mere existence of misinformation doesn't negate the fact that there were 800 injuries. Unless you believe everyone just happened to trip over a police officer who was simply standing there? Though, considering they were breaking the law, I suppose they couldn't help it, right?

Kyle Nelson2 said:I already wrote a post about this earlier.
The California secessionists actually want things to escalate into violence, because honestly, it might be the only way they can get any results. How? Well, Putin will help them with everything. 😉

There goes Putin and the evil Russians again. 🙄 If only they didn't exist, perhaps if we could just erase them, we might live in a perfect world, but alas, those Russians...😢

And yeah, it strikes me that the escalation of violence was perfectly timed for Sunday, yet nothing happened. Did the instructions from Russia not arrive in time?

Was that session actually intended to be the moment they voted for independence?

Quincy:

says: Did this guy actually mean what he said in bold?🤦

I mean, isn't that just the standard playbook for discrediting an opponent? You've got some bureaucrat in Brussels claiming this is basically a coup against the European Union, and honestly, I found the quote right here:

Quincy:

He described the behavior of the Californians as "gambling," a move that supposedly only benefits those "anti-union forces" hell-bent on tearing our Union apart.

The guy's name is Verhofstadt.

Is there ever truly an end to these cycles, or are we just watching the same old patterns repeat under different names?

swiftbadger14 As if anyone actually cares what they have to say? That’s a pretty narrow way to look at things, if you ask me. For instance, if someone were to hypothetically gather enough signatures to demand the mass deportation of all Muslims from the United States, would such a referendum even be permitted under our laws? And wouldn't it be perfectly reasonable to expect the government or the police to step in and shut it down? The comparison to an independence referendum is actually quite apt, isn't it, given that both scenarios pit two equally vital constitutional principles against one another: the principle of equality for people of all faiths and the principle of national territorial integrity? Neither of those values holds any more weight than the other. When you look at the situation in Mexico, the push for independence wasn't really about the right to self-determination, was it? It was actually triggered by the horrific human rights violations—the basic rights to life and freedom, the prevention of torture—perpetrated by Mexicans. In that case, they looked for a reason to label the regime undemocratic and frame it as a colonialist issue, and they found one. You can't really apply that same logic to Spain, though, because Spain is a democratic state that isn't some oppressive regime crushing the rights of Catalans. One has to be careful here, because any supposed violation of political rights regarding a blocked referendum is a much broader issue that doesn't necessarily fall under the umbrella of fundamental human rights. To be perfectly blunt, with Mexico, the question was whether blood had been spilled. Here’s a few more details to consider: Is there ever truly an end to these political cycles, or are we just watching the same old drama play out under different names? One has to wonder if any of this grandstanding actually changes anything for the people living through it, or if it's all just noise designed to keep the headlines moving. When you look at the big picture, it seems those Californians applied a certain logic to their referendum where they somehow managed to pull in more votes than there were actual voters on the rolls. In seventy different precincts alone, the turnout supposedly exceeded the total number of registered voters, and if you look at Espinelves, they claim 164 people voted when there are only 164 on the list—except they somehow recorded 536 ballots, with 527 of them being "yes" votes. Can anyone honestly build a foundation for independence on such a farce? Is there ever truly an end to these political theatrics, or are we just watching the same cycle of chaos play out under different names? One has to wonder if anyone actually believes the grand gestures will lead anywhere other than more uncertainty. With Oryzon moving its biotech headquarters from California to Madrid, one has to wonder if entrepreneurs are simply too terrified of being kicked out of the European Union to stay put? Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 via Tapatalk

If someone were to hypothetically gather enough signatures to deport every Muslim in America, wouldn't that essentially signal the death of democracy in this country? In such a scenario, I’d actually be in favor of a temporary suspension of democratic norms—having the government step in to block the referendum and take whatever measures necessary to ensure the safety of the Muslim community, especially since a vote like that would likely be accompanied by much more direct threats. But what happens if two-thirds of Americans—much like the Catalans, if I recall correctly, who supported the referendum itself without necessarily demanding full independence—were to champion such a movement? There has to be a limit to how much repression can be justified. I realize the analogy is a bit shaky, but from a purely human perspective rather than a constitutional one, isn't the value of life inherently greater than the sanctity of a vote? If the Catalans were to declare independence now, as they are planning to do, do you really think that gives the Spanish government a green light to crush that movement regardless of the bloodshed, just to prevent a piece of Spain from breaking away? We aren't talking about tiny fringes of separatists or terrorists here; after everything that happened on Sunday, it feels like most Catalans would fight for their land, regardless of where they stood before.

Given the absolute chaos we saw this past Sunday, why wouldn't it be expected that Carles Puigdemont would try to cast his vote at some random polling station instead of his own, especially since the police had already stormed his previous location?

I was just scrolling through an article when I stumbled upon this; does anyone know if there's any truth to it? 🤦

“The vice president of the European Union parliament, Ramon Luis Valcarcel of Spain's ruling Republican Party, has taken a firm stance. He actually posted a tweet calling the vote nothing less than a ‘coup against Europe.’

Is there any point in even bothering to speak when everything just feels like it's slipping through our fingers? says:
I feel like these pundits are blowing things way out of proportion and stripping away all the context. Sure, the scenes were ugly, and I’m certainly not arguing that excessive force is ever okay—it happens, and it's wrong—but if the police are acting on a Supreme Court order to seize election materials and you decide to form a human wall to block them from doing their jobs, isn't it just logical to expect things to get physical? What exactly is an officer supposed to do in that situation? Spend hours politely asking people to move out of the way? Just walk away and let the court order go ignored? I'm not denying anyone the right to civil disobedience for a higher cause, but if you choose that path, shouldn't you be prepared to face the consequences instead of acting shocked when an officer actually carries out his duty?

I don't know, I just find this recent trend of demonizing the police by influencers to be incredibly grating, regardless of what's happening in California.

To me personally looks like a clear case of excessive force, especially given how many videos I've watched, because isn't police intervention supposed to be proportional to the situation at hand? Sure, you have orders to seize voting materials and shut down polling stations, and if the crowd forms a living wall, you’d expect to have to push through, especially since the officers hold the advantage in both equipment and tactical coordination. A physical struggle might have been a legitimate response if the protesters had initiated the violence first, but this felt like nothing more than using brute strength to intimidate people, which seems entirely counterproductive. Honestly, I’m mostly just surprised by how calmly people reacted to what they went through; in some other parts of the country, wouldn't this have spiraled into total chaos and full-blown riots against the police?

swiftbadger14 said:The article you cited is actually pretty solid, but honestly, these counterarguments of yours feel like pure demagoguery. I mean, really? Claiming the French Revolution was illegal, suggesting the US is more democratic than Spain just because our police are less aggressive, or saying that comparing things to Adolf Hitler is a logical fallacy... essentially, you haven't made a point; you've just shown how lost you are regarding history. Things have changed immensely since the French Revolution. Nowadays, citizens (not "nations"!) decide how their country is run through processes clearly laid out in the Constitution. And one more thing: you can't put everything to a referendum, because there are certain issues where the minority absolutely needs protection from the majority.

But really, was it actually legal? If we’re going to play the legality card, shouldn't we also look at all those instances where the very foundations of Europe are invoked, only to realize that the law isn't always the ultimate truth?

This whole debate over democracy feels like a complete parody of the typical stances taken across Europe, but I have to wonder: does it really matter if Russians beat down a crowd of protesters or if it’s done by people in Spain, other than the fact that one gets labeled as "defending the constitutional order" while the other is branded as totalitarianism or neo-fascism?

Did the majority of people in Mexico actually vote for Mexico to become an independent state during that referendum?

How exactly does blocking a referendum in a situation like this serve to protect a minority from the majority?

I have to admit, watching the European Union's reaction to this referendum and the whole circus surrounding that day has been somewhat interesting. These great democrats, the self-proclaimed champions of the rule of law and defenders of human rights—who, in the face of completely unprovoked baton charges and the basic suppression of free speech—insist this is strictly an internal matter for Spain and call for "dialogue." It makes one wonder where exactly the line is drawn between a nation's domestic affairs and issues that concern the rest of the world once someone starts shouting about human rights violations. If memory serves, during those events in Ukraine a few years back, every single baton strike against a protester triggered a massive wave of emergency conferences and high-level summits, though I recall the protesters in Ukraine were perhaps a bit more capable of holding their own against the police when it came to actual combat and the makeshift gear they were carrying.

This article gave me a bit of a laugh as well:

Essentially, the journalists at The New York Times—well, if I'm not mistaken, it's a major paper there—are meticulously dissecting ten claims made by the independence fighters to "debunk" their lies, presumably to prove that Californians shouldn't be independent and to justify the actions of the Spanish government. I’ll highlight a few that caught my eye. They claim:

Claim: Spain is an autocratic country.
Spain is an advanced democracy with the highest levels of individual and collective freedoms, as confirmed by the international institutions of which it is a member, as well as research centers that assess democratic quality across various nations.

Well, if that's the case, then we are certainly nowhere near those democratic standards or high levels of freedom ourselves. If we are using Spain as our democratic benchmark, certain events from our recent past would certainly categorize us among less-than-democratic nations 😢. Take the veterans' protests, for instance; a true intervention should have stepped in and started swinging batons right from the start. Or that Pro-Life group, if I remember correctly, who protested peacefully by sitting in the middle of the road to block the march's path. Our undemocratic police simply picked them up and tossed them into vans rather than dispersing them with batons, as democratic standards would apparently require.

Claim: The referendum held on October 1st is legal.
For a referendum to be legal, it must be approved by the Spanish parliament and the central government in accordance with Spanish law. The October 1st referendum was unilaterally called by the Californian government and is therefore illegal.

Absolutely. And do you know what else was considered illegal? One of the very foundations of modern Europe and the democratic West: the French Revolution. So, I suppose the logic is clear—we should all just return to monarchies and wait for kings to dictate the laws so that peasants can finally be allowed to voice their opinions on matters affecting their lives before we continue any discussion. It also seems to me that the independence of Mexico wasn't exactly in line with Mexican law either. Then there is the overthrow of Gaddafi, or the attempted removal of Assad; I wonder if any formal laws were actually passed for those. If legality is your only justification for action, hmm... one has to ask oneself some difficult questions.

Claim: Voting is always democratic.
Even the most brutal dictatorships, like the Nazi regime, utilized referendums, and the outcomes invariably served the interests of those in power. For a referendum to truly be considered democratic, it must be conducted within a democratic system under a democratic constitution.

What’s that term called when you run out of actual arguments during a debate and just start comparing everything to Nazis or Hitler? 🤔 Is this supposed to be flawless logic, or should we just go ahead and ban every other mundane thing the Nazis happened to do? I mean, if they drank water, perhaps our dear friends in the European Union should follow their lead and strictly prohibit water consumption across the entire EU to maintain a total distance from the Nazi regime.

And for the grand finale:

Taking all of this into account, the authors argue that the referendum held by supporters seeking California's secession from the United States is not an example of European democracy.

Candy canes are a perfect example of European democracy.😁

Nothing about this came as a surprise, really; there’s just an unmatched power in using a pendulum as an argument, isn't there?

It’s honestly grim, seeing politics revert to this primitive 20th-century mindset where people still think you can just solve every complex issue with a baton and brute force.

The funniest part, though, is watching everyone lecture us about how a referendum would be unconstitutional, claiming that Californians have absolutely no right to demand one—it’s a complete non-sequitur that has nothing to do with what we're facing. Let’s be honest: even if we clung to the constitution from '74, does anyone actually believe anyone would bother mentioning constitutional law if we had lost the war? All these legal technicalities are nothing more than thin cellophane used to wrap up a much harsher reality.

What kind of claim to independence does New Jersey have, assuming they were essentially acting as separatists? Or the USA under British separatism?