I am the type of person who doesn’t do well on standardized tests. I will go through the school year getting all A’s, but when it comes to the ACT I fail.
I don’t get how the ACT proves how good a student I am. I study for every test, and when it comes time to take that test I get an A.
So why should the state be able to test me on my ability to learn? First lady Michelle Obama said, “If my future were determined just by my performance on a standardized test, I wouldn’t be here. I guarantee you that.”
I am able to learn, but when I’m put into a situation where I have to take a test that I can’t study for, I fail. I get that they want to know what kind of student I am before I am accepted into college, but there could be different ways to do that.
I think the grade-point average should be more important than the ACT score.Lyndsay Smith Liberty Kansas, sex education
Just when I think our lawmakers in Topeka can’t be any more of a laughingstock, they prove me wrong (2-19, A1, “Kansas rethinks its sex ed policy”). What an uproar over a poster at Hocker Grove Middle School.
I’m sure that the poster in question was used correctly as a teaching aid and that the teachers didn’t take the poster to every room and force all the children to memorize the words for a test.
Don’t people remember anything from their youth? The stuff we talked about in middle school could have made that poster blush.
Of course, we didn’t always know what we were talking about. Our sex ed teachers of 50 years ago had more hang-ups than the Kansas Legislature.
I guess the legislative clowns don’t want today’s children taught sex education at school. Guess what?
Undereducated teenagers tend to produce grandbabies for their stupid parents who thought “Don’t you dare do the dirty thing” was adequate sex education coming from the home.
I remember listening to adults in my parents’ generation in the 1950s espousing the need for the legal protection for segregationists with “sincerely held religious beliefs.” We haven’t come very far since then in Kansas.
Rep. Charles Macheers, a Republican from Shawnee, is sponsoring a bill that would allow anyone with “sincerely held religious beliefs” to refuse “any services, accommodations, facilities, goods, privileges, adoption, foster care or employment” to gay couples.
I can almost hear Alabama Gov. George Wallace shouting in his inaugural address 51 years ago, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”
Even Wallace eventually renounced segregation. Maybe Kansas will too by defeating this poorly thought-out bill sponsored by Macheers.Jim Babcock Robinson, Kan. Uninsured Missourians
Many Missourians will not be able to get health insurance because the Republican majority in Jefferson City decided against accepting the Medicaid funds available.
The Republicans in Missouri and other states have left no stone unturned to discredit the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. This law is not perfect but can be improved in the future, and many good ideas are already implemented.
The Republican Party might have played on people’s faith-based ideas or whatever they made folks believe. But the result is that it was a majority of voters who put them in the Legislature, and thus many people voted against their own interest.
Please stay informed about whatever unfavorable laws Republican legislators promote that might also be detrimental to hard-working Missourians.Maria Baldwin Kansas City Speed ‘suggestions’
Does anybody know how to read a speed limit sign? What does a speed limit sign mean?
Whenever I drive (the speed limit) it makes me feel as if I am going backward because of the speed demons who pass me. I suppose the police don’t try to enforce the speed limits.George Deniston North Kansas City Mystified in Kansas
Would someone please explain the logic behind a decision that:
1) Leaves 77,920 (some estimates run as high as 240,000) of the poorest Kansans, including many children, without health insurance.
2) Exacerbates emergency-room overcrowding and expenses.
3) Rejects care that would cost Kansas nothing for three years (now reduced to two).
4) Would be 90 percent federally funded thereafter.
5) Could presumably be terminated if the federales renege on their promised share.
6) Injects millions of dollars per annum into the Kansas economy that would support hundreds of jobs in health care, with wide ripple effects.
7) Has millions of Kansas tax dollars going to the 20-odd states that put the health care of their citizens ahead of politics.
What can our leaders be thinking? Or do they bother?Paul Enos Lawrence