Red Mosquito

Child Charged With Murdering New Hampshire Mom and Her Two Sons

simple schoolboy wrote:

warehouse wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote: Everyone and their mother has one or five ARs now.

what pile of shit state do you live in?

Hyperbole for those legally allowed to own guns, not so much for those committed to crime.

The biggest and bluest of them all. Almost all the guns seized by local cops are home made or stolen. AR pistols or polymer 80 handguns which I don't think the proposed law will effect much.

Apparently our DA will plead down to a citation for illegal possession of a firearm for an already prohibited possessor having a gun, so I'm not really sure why the cops bother doing the photo shoots of the home assembled guns.

people who legally own guns use them illegally every single day. this is why we can't ban the fucking gun.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/dutch- ... 022-08-27/

Hope the guy in critical condition ends up okay. It would wreck our contractors, but maybe any allies we trust* to train locally we should trust with CCWs or maybe not at all. Yes, here's this $100 million dollar machine, but what if you go crazy and just fire off a pistol into a crowd?

*obviously not Saudi Arabia, sorry, you only get Chinese or Israeli stuff now

wtf kids go to school at 4 now? Why don't we simply turn over the child to the state after they are weaned?

BurtReynolds wrote:wtf kids go to school at 4 now? Why don't we simply turn over the child to the state after they are weened?

Takes a village, Burt.

Pre-k is a good thing, burt.

elliseamos wrote:Pre-k is a good thing, burt.

Gotta indoctrinate em while they're young, eh?

elliseamos wrote:Pre-k is a good thing, burt.

Maybe it's good as in it's nice to have free childcare, but haven't most studies found very minimal/ non-existent improvements in educational outcomes which was kind of the whole selling point?

That's just because they don't have enough access to Adderall.

simple schoolboy wrote:

elliseamos wrote:Pre-k is a good thing, burt.

Maybe it's good as in it's nice to have free childcare, but haven't most studies found very minimal/ non-existent improvements in educational outcomes which was kind of the whole selling point?

The outcomes were there, but slight. I'm not talking "Head Start: Birth-3yo". I'm just talking universal Pre-K. Which we've never truly had in this country. The data is all over the place. The only state to have a longitudinal study is Tennessee, and they're one of the worst testing states and their study was narrow (volunteers only).

Another analysis, which cobbled together multiple states and tried to control for demographics (still the greatest indicator of "testing" success) found:

"In contrast, the correlations between pre-K enrollment and adjusted NAEP scores are consistently positive for both reading and math, consistently higher for reading than for math, and statistically significant for reading for the 2013 and 2015 testing years. Thus, once we adjust NAEP scores across states so that differences between states in the demographics of their students are neutralized, states with larger state pre-K programs in a given year have fourth graders who do better on NAEP five years later."

And this analysis is not in favor of universal pre-k as its been tried, it explains why and ends with this, which is my overall point that "it is a good thing", but doesn’texist in its best form:

"It is important to stress that neither the broader literature nor the present data foreclose the possibility that some state pre-K programs have positive long-term impacts on the achievement of some children; that the positive effects of state pre-K programs “sleep” during the school years but emerge in later life; that differently designed and delivered state pre-K programs or better alignment between state pre-K programs and the public schools could lead to substantive impacts; or that positive effects of state pre-K play out primarily through pathways of family financial support rather than children’s early learning in center-based care. These are all hypotheses that can be pursued.

I have argued elsewhere that the policy path forward for the center-based care and education of young children is muddled. The present analysis reinforces that judgment. Putting nearly all our eggs in the same basket — enhancing access to state pre-K for four-year-olds – shows little evidence to date of having a substantive payoff in later school achievement. It is time for enthusiasts for increased investments in state pre-K to confront the evidence that it does not enhance student achievement meaningfully. They need to temper their enthusiasm for more of the same and, instead, support testing of other approaches that appear promising."

https://www.brookings.edu/research/does ... hievement/

meh, what do you know?

elliseamos wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

elliseamos wrote:Pre-k is a good thing, burt.

Maybe it's good as in it's nice to have free childcare, but haven't most studies found very minimal/ non-existent improvements in educational outcomes which was kind of the whole selling point?

The outcomes were there, but slight. I'm not talking "Head Start: Birth-3yo". I'm just talking universal Pre-K. Which we've never truly had in this country. The data is all over the place. The only state to have a longitudinal study is Tennessee, and they're one of the worst testing states and their study was narrow (volunteers only).

Another analysis, which cobbled together multiple states and tried to control for demographics (still the greatest indicator of "testing" success) found:

"In contrast, the correlations between pre-K enrollment and adjusted NAEP scores are consistently positive for both reading and math, consistently higher for reading than for math, and statistically significant for reading for the 2013 and 2015 testing years. Thus, once we adjust NAEP scores across states so that differences between states in the demographics of their students are neutralized, states with larger state pre-K programs in a given year have fourth graders who do better on NAEP five years later."

And this analysis is not in favor of universal pre-k as its been tried, it explains why and ends with this, which is my overall point that "it is a good thing", but doesn’texist in its best form:

"It is important to stress that neither the broader literature nor the present data foreclose the possibility that some state pre-K programs have positive long-term impacts on the achievement of some children; that the positive effects of state pre-K programs “sleep” during the school years but emerge in later life; that differently designed and delivered state pre-K programs or better alignment between state pre-K programs and the public schools could lead to substantive impacts; or that positive effects of state pre-K play out primarily through pathways of family financial support rather than children’s early learning in center-based care. These are all hypotheses that can be pursued.

I have argued elsewhere that the policy path forward for the center-based care and education of young children is muddled. The present analysis reinforces that judgment. Putting nearly all our eggs in the same basket — enhancing access to state pre-K for four-year-olds – shows little evidence to date of having a substantive payoff in later school achievement. It is time for enthusiasts for increased investments in state pre-K to confront the evidence that it does not enhance student achievement meaningfully. They need to temper their enthusiasm for more of the same and, instead, support testing of other approaches that appear promising."

https://www.brookings.edu/research/does ... hievement/

He just doesn’t want his taxes paying for it.

spike wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

elliseamos wrote:Pre-k is a good thing, burt.

Maybe it's good as in it's nice to have free childcare, but haven't most studies found very minimal/ non-existent improvements in educational outcomes which was kind of the whole selling point?

The outcomes were there, but slight. I'm not talking "Head Start: Birth-3yo". I'm just talking universal Pre-K. Which we've never truly had in this country. The data is all over the place. The only state to have a longitudinal study is Tennessee, and they're one of the worst testing states and their study was narrow (volunteers only).

Another analysis, which cobbled together multiple states and tried to control for demographics (still the greatest indicator of "testing" success) found:

"In contrast, the correlations between pre-K enrollment and adjusted NAEP scores are consistently positive for both reading and math, consistently higher for reading than for math, and statistically significant for reading for the 2013 and 2015 testing years. Thus, once we adjust NAEP scores across states so that differences between states in the demographics of their students are neutralized, states with larger state pre-K programs in a given year have fourth graders who do better on NAEP five years later."

And this analysis is not in favor of universal pre-k as its been tried, it explains why and ends with this, which is my overall point that "it is a good thing", but doesn’texist in its best form:

"It is important to stress that neither the broader literature nor the present data foreclose the possibility that some state pre-K programs have positive long-term impacts on the achievement of some children; that the positive effects of state pre-K programs “sleep” during the school years but emerge in later life; that differently designed and delivered state pre-K programs or better alignment between state pre-K programs and the public schools could lead to substantive impacts; or that positive effects of state pre-K play out primarily through pathways of family financial support rather than children’s early learning in center-based care. These are all hypotheses that can be pursued.

I have argued elsewhere that the policy path forward for the center-based care and education of young children is muddled. The present analysis reinforces that judgment. Putting nearly all our eggs in the same basket — enhancing access to state pre-K for four-year-olds – shows little evidence to date of having a substantive payoff in later school achievement. It is time for enthusiasts for increased investments in state pre-K to confront the evidence that it does not enhance student achievement meaningfully. They need to temper their enthusiasm for more of the same and, instead, support testing of other approaches that appear promising."

https://www.brookings.edu/research/does ... hievement/

He just doesn’t want his taxes paying for it.

Heaven forfend that we try to establish whether the services we pay for actually accomplish their purported goal.

Also, why is it that every fashionable progressive program has modest at best outcomes and that's always the strongest signal that we need to do it harder?

I would like childcare to be affordable. Government pre-K programs are going to end up with something like the situation in DC where childcare providers must have a Master's degree. Dem's interest in making childcare higher status is completely at odds with affordability. No (or negative) value add credentialism is the solution to everything, apparently.

"... state pre-K programs or better alignment between state pre-K programs and the public schools could lead to substantive impacts; or that positive effects of state pre-K play out primarily through pathways of family financial support rather than children’s early learning in center-based care. These are all hypotheses that can be pursued."

elliseamos wrote:"... state pre-K programs or better alignment between state pre-K programs and the public schools could lead to substantive impacts; or that positive effects of state pre-K play out primarily through pathways of family financial support rather than children’s early learning in center-based care. These are all hypotheses that can be pursued."

"It is important to stress that neither the broader literature nor the present data foreclose the possibility that some state pre-K programs have positive long-term impacts on the achievement of some children; that the positive effects of state pre-K programs “sleep” during the school years but emerge in later

A lot of weight borne by that could and can.

Subsidizing one parent to stay at home with the kid up to age x is probably something worth investigating, but somehow not in the offering.

Now that seems like the least likely idea to get support.