It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Standardized tests for ALL government positions (especially elected ones)

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 08:54 AM
link   
When a politician mows their own grass, there is chaos. One just got beat up by his neighbor, they feel they can do whatever they want. No, politicians should not be allowed to mow grass or do any yard work.

They probably should not be allowed to drive either, it would make the lives of our law enforcement officers less difficult. I bet they could use taking away licenses of politicians and local heiarchy a bargaining chip in police union negotiations.




posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

One has to view the standardized testing system to be a valuable asset in society before it can be thought of in ways that are specific.

Part of the reason we view kids and adults buried in their tweetcicles is squarely due to the standardized testing system of public schools. I had a cashier tell me the other day, ''I am sorry, I don't do math."

Why on Earth did we ever allow policy makers to EVER implement a standardized testing system that teaches children how 'little they need to learn' to get a buy-in to subsidization program of government in adult years??? Way to be inspiring policy makers...you've essentially robbed youth of their inspiration!

And now you want to include a standardized testing system for the policy makers too? Just because the policy makers have been successful thus far, does not mean that people should endorse further wastes of tax revenues to include more stalled 'stupid' into society.

How about the policy makers retire so we can vote in people that aren't attached to the bad choices that policy makers already made? Once the Red/Blue machine can be pushed aside, maybe we can get back to talking about principles that actually have some meaning beyond finding more acceptance for the retarded thinking of continuing to use the wasteful practices policy makers allow for in these times.

If there's a need for standardized testing of any sorts, it would be for the American voter. Watch George Carlin's bit on voting... I can't link it here due to T&C violations, but it tells the American voter exactly what they are... they are the reason for being where we are now, therefore making it the primary suspect to be in the most need of training.

"Garbage In, garbage out... that's what you get folks, that's the best the American voter can offer," says Carlin. RIP George, your sense of logic is far removed and missed.



posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: WeRpeons

Great post... I hope to find my way by your side when these words you speak of are turned to action!!! If you are teaching those words in school, then I thank you very much for standing firm and teaching our kids correctly! It's about time standards are removed, and that youth are encouraged to find their own inner voice before latching onto a system of grouping and dividing!

The American voter is responsible for allowing policy makers, not makers of goods, reside in the wealthiest counties of the U.S. ignore those aspects, and continuously look for more and more costly programs to add... all to feed the open loop hole that the typical American voter doesn't hold any responsibility to the consequences of their vote.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
I have seen so many people in seats of power who I wouldn't trust to mow my lawn, yet they are supposed to decide on gun control and other legal issues? Really? Is there a joke here I'm not seeing?" Is all of this some kind of mass Truman show where the producers are waiting for us to rise up, rip these dumb asses out of office and demand competence?

First of all I think ALL teachers in any school that gets ANY form of government $$ should have to pass standardized tests, and these should be moderately difficult and comprehensive. Private teachers should have the option to take the test as well. I'm not talking about tests or degrees from universities b/c they lost credibility about 40+ years ago and have basically been diploma mills since then with a small number of students there to actually learn (though they may get lower grades than people who cheated the whole way through and learned basically nothing). These tests would be constructed to they can no be 'cheated" on and I think essay is best or writing answers in sentences. Sure it would take time to grade them, but if it keeps Numbskull-Know-Nothing-Neil out of a teaching job and gives it to Studious Steve, then it is worth a years salary just for that test alone! I think this also needs to be done for professors.

We also need to review how test are written, given and taken for professionals. Test should not EVER be re-used but the test can be similar but change up the way the question is asked, the numbers, sequences of how the data is presented, etc. If the test taker can't understand the question then that in itself is a test in comprehension and a major test right there!

If a person is going to hold an elected position, there needs to be some base line level of knowledge. If you are dealing with a town, being the mayor let's say, then the town should come up with questions that should be asked to all candidates that are relevant to the town and would be important to running the town - anything from knowing the demographics, religions, industries present in town, history, ethnic history (who makes up the town - was it founded by italians or irish or germans, or Caribbean blacks, etc), are there any financial concerns (is it in debt) and how did it get there and what is being done, etc. Then questions about general municipal management, civil administration questions, procedural questions, emergency preparedness, planning for the future, etc. these questions would be generated by either a large committee and also submitted by those within the community (individuals, businesses, churches, schools, etc). The questions would not be shown ahead of time to any contestant. The testing committee would get the answers and score the results based upon the answers (originally provided by the submitter of the question). The scores would be made public and they would get a rating (1-10) in various areas on how they did. The political hopefuls would be given a study guide or outline of possible testing topics so that they have an idea of what may be asked and it would be up to them to study a broad range of information and REALLY know it, thus knowing the town, and this would weed out people who were there for power, the paycheck and allow those that actually care to remain. It would be obvious those who tried to learn about the town by the answers and even if not 100% correct wouldn't mean they are unqualified as they could learn the proper answer and from there on it wouldn't be a "game" to keep out the con-men.

This need to be done on a larger level like house and senate members for each state government as well as congressmen ad senators on the federal level..... I'm sure there are other gov jobs which need better qualified members and testing should be implemented there as well.

If we CAN get people who are qualified and can do GOOD for the local, state or fed gov, then I think they should be paid much more than they are now - maybe tie pay to performance somehow - based upon voter approval rating maybe? The small amount of money paid in salary to gov officials is nothing compared to the money lost due to incompetency and plain stupidity (and greed most likely). If the officials were in the top 5% in their relative field, had integrity and were honest (but knew when they had to stretch truth, tell white lies, etc in negotiations with other countries or dealing with media in sensitive topics - NOT malevolent or self-serving lies or stretches of truth) it would be worth paying them much more than current salaries as it would pay off in the positive results in all areas in which they work. One man earning $200,000/year (senator) hands out a $500,000,000 no bid contract for a small military base where an honest representative (verified through new testing procedures and undercover sting solicitation tests) determines the same base can be built for just over $100,000,000 and puts it up for bid and it goes to 40 different contractors - mostly small biz's instead of a mega company where less than 1% of that half billion makes it to the workers. The saved $400,000,000 can be used for other projects which are also not over-priced and maybe there will be money for things like public health care, national infrastructure, investment in GOOD schools and universities, etc.

I'm just saying WE NEED THE IDIOTS/MORONS/CON-People (yes there are fraudster women) OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT and ESPECIALLY out of education and the media!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I also think there should be constant under-cover stings to find out if government officials (especially judges and police officers) are corrupt.



Then a new problem arises. Who conducts the tests so they are untainted? Who composes the tests themselves? And it wouldnt take long for the gen population to distrust the testing methods, composition, and final results like we do now.

Never been that way....as no 2 persons are alike, have the same upbringing and backgrounds, experiences, educations and/or mental abilities. Wouldnt be possible nor accurate on an unequal playing field...and I think it would be discriminate to some takers as well.



posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Random drug testing for Congressmen!!!



posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Can we have them wear NASCAR suits that tell us who is buying their influence too???



posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Teachers do have to pass a standardized test. I forget exactly what they are called, but I had to take them in order to teach classroom. I had to take some on basic classroom instruction and some on my particular subject area since I was going to be junior high.

There was a scandal a while back because they discovered that some teachers in NY were paying people to go sit those exams for them.



posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

At this point what difference does it make?

I'm sure you heard the story about the pharmacist that said members of congress were on Alzheimer's medication?

They forgot the answers decades ago!


edit on 18-11-2017 by Diisenchanted because: strange



posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Diisenchanted

The way Alzheimer's works, they would still have the answers from decades ago.



posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
There is already a test. Elections.... and in America it's a tough test to pass.
I find the idea of testing along the lines you are suggesting to be dangerous. Those tests would have to be managed - corrupt that system and you have a built-in method for just a few people deciding who can be elected. Very bad idea.

I would guess that such a notion was debated when the constitution was written?


The reason you and other conservatives despise this idea is because you know who would pass and would not.


The conservative politicians have shown they are against education and prove it time and time again with their constant attacks against science, verifiable facts and others.

Oh yeah and a lot of them elected Trump.



posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: jacquesdarippa

originally posted by: UKTruth
There is already a test. Elections.... and in America it's a tough test to pass.
I find the idea of testing along the lines you are suggesting to be dangerous. Those tests would have to be managed - corrupt that system and you have a built-in method for just a few people deciding who can be elected. Very bad idea.

I would guess that such a notion was debated when the constitution was written?


The reason you and other conservatives despise this idea is because you know who would pass and would not.


The conservative politicians have shown they are against education and prove it time and time again with their constant attacks against science, verifiable facts and others.

Oh yeah and a lot of them elected Trump.


Really? Wouldn't they be racist? Sort of like a poll tax ... screening out those deemed unfit to serve.

What would happen to people like Sheila Jackson Lee who thinks there is an American flag on Mars for the Mars rover to drive by? Or who thinks the Constitution is 400 years old? Oh and she sits on the science committee ...

If you're honest, it isn't just Republicans who have a lock on stupid members.

How about ol' Hank Johnson who thinks Guam will tip over?



posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Yeah. Smart people aren't always the best people. In an ideal world every elected official would have an IQ of exactly 100 in order to represent the most people. The best leaders are not the ones who know everything, they are the ones who know how to delegate. I think your post was very well written and I enjoyed reading it. I agree that teachers should know the subject they're teaching. I believe we already have measures in place for this, but of course there is always room for improvement. You may find, upon examination, that standardized testing has actually had a detrimental effect on the quality of public education, and that may influence your feelings about standardized testing as a requirement for office. I do want to stress that your OP was very good, and worth the read.

Best!




top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join