CA: on jan 1st, Students Won’t Have to Pass High School to Receive Diploma

[singular_me]

no diploma needed anymore to be taught fallacies?
personally, I dont think diplomas really mean anything. Eventually most theories go bunk. But this is revealing.
===============
California Laws: On January 1st, Students Won’t Have to Pass High School to Receive Diploma
29th December 2015

‘On January 1, California residents will have to accustom themselves to a number of new laws that will be implemented in the state. These are some the laws that will likely have the most profound effect:

SB 172: High school seniors will receive their diploma whether or not they pass or even take an exit exam; the law also applies retroactively to students who have graduated since 2004’

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/27/new-california-laws-bring-no-passing-necessary-receive-high-school-diploma/

[ShortJohnSilver]

So, if the kids aren't educated, why pay school taxes? Why bother busing them to schools, warehousing them in expensive buildings, paying school superintendents $200K per year?

We could just hire a bunch of uneducated guys who usually hang out at the front of Home Depot, have them run the school system, and get the same results...

[palani]

We could just hire a bunch of uneducated guys who usually hang out at the front of Home Depot, have them run the school system, and get the same results...
The strawman in the Wizard of Oz comes to mind. All he needed was a diploma to make him intelligent.

This is probably part of NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND although why a diploma is needed to reach your full potential in the general prison population I don't have a clue.

[madfranks]

So, if the kids aren't educated, why pay school taxes? Why bother busing them to schools, warehousing them in expensive buildings, paying school superintendents $200K per year?

We could just hire a bunch of uneducated guys who usually hang out at the front of Home Depot, have them run the school system, and get the same results...

We can make it even easier; since they don't actually have to pass exams or even take exams, just forget public school altogether and simply issue everyone a high school diploma on their 18th birthday, then we'll have a 100% graduation rate!! We'll be the envy of the world with the highest graduation rate anywhere.

[vacuum]

Look at this one:

AB 1014 (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB1014): Will permit family members to obtain a restraining order to keep relatives who might commit gun violence from owning a gun

Here's some text I found:


This bill would authorize a court to issue a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order if a law enforcement officer asserts and a judicial officer finds that there is reasonable cause to believe that the subject of the petition poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another, as specified. The bill would require a law enforcement officer to serve the order on the restrained person, if the restrained person can reasonably be located, file a copy of the order with the court, and have the order entered into the computer database system for protective and restraining orders maintained by the Department of Justice. The bill would require the presiding judge of the superior court of each county to designate at least one judge, commissioner, or referee who is required to be reasonably available to issue temporary emergency gun violence restraining orders when the court is not in session.

This bill would additionally authorize a court to issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order prohibiting the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition when it is shown that there is a substantial likelihood that the subject of the petition poses a significant danger of harm to himself, herself, or another in the near future by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another, as specified. The bill would require the ex parte order to expire no later than 21 days after the date on the order and would require the court to hold a hearing within 21 days of issuing the ex parte gun violence restraining order to determine if a gun violence restraining order that is in effect for one year should be issued. The bill would require a law enforcement officer or a person at least 18 years of age who is not a party to the action to personally serve the restrained person the ex parte order, if the restrained person can reasonably be located.

The bill would authorize a court to issue a gun violence restraining order prohibiting the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition for a period of one year when there is clear and convincing evidence that the subject of the petition, or a person subject to an ex parte gun violence restraining order, as applicable, poses a significant danger of personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another, as specified. The bill would authorize the renewal of the order for additional one-year periods and would permit the restrained person to request one hearing to terminate the order during the effective period of the initial order or each renewal period.

The bill would require a court, upon issuance of a gun violence restraining order, to order the restrained person to surrender to the local law enforcement agency all firearms and ammunition in his or her custody or control, or which he or she possesses or owns. The bill would require the local law enforcement agency to retain custody of the firearm or firearms and ammunition for the duration of a gun violence restraining order.

The bill would require the court to notify the Department of Justice when any gun violence restraining order has been issued, renewed, dissolved, or terminated. The bill would also require the court, when sending that notice, to specify whether the person subject to the gun violence restraining order was present in court to be informed of the contents of the order or if the person failed to appear. The bill would require proof of service of the order to be entered into the California Restraining and Protective Order System, as specified.

The bill would make it a misdemeanor to file a petition for an ex parte gun violence restraining order or a gun violence restraining order issued after notice and a hearing, knowing the information in the petition to be false or with the intent to harass. The bill would also provide that a person who owns or possesses a firearm or ammunition with the knowledge that he or she is prohibited from doing so by a gun violence restraining order is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be prohibited from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition for a 5-year period, commencing upon the expiration of the existing gun violence restraining order.

By creating new crimes and by requiring new duties of local law enforcement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2) Existing law states the grounds upon which a search warrant may be issued, including when the property or things to be seized include a firearm or any other deadly weapon that is owned by, or in the possession of, or in the custody or control of, specified persons.

This bill would allow a search warrant to be issued when the property or things to be seized are firearms or ammunition or both that are owned by, in the possession of, or in the custody or control of, a person who is the subject of a gun violence restraining order if a prohibited firearm or ammunition or both is possessed, owned, in the custody of, or controlled by a person against whom a gun violence restraining order has been issued, the person has been lawfully served with that order, and the person has failed to relinquish the firearm as required by law. The bill would also require the law enforcement officer executing a search warrant issued upon that ground to take custody of any firearm or ammunition that is in the restrained person’s custody or control or possession or that is owned by the restrained person, which is discovered pursuant to a consensual or other lawful search and would provide rules for executing the search warrant when the location to be searched is jointly occupied by the restrained person and one or more other persons.




https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB1014

[Santa]

So, if the kids aren't educated, why pay school taxes? Why bother busing them to schools, warehousing them in expensive buildings, paying school superintendents $200K per year?

We could just hire a bunch of uneducated guys who usually hang out at the front of Home Depot, have them run the school system, and get the same results...

True. Probably because the point of public school isn't so much about education as it is indoctrination. Education is mostly a self directed enterprise, anyway.

[mick silver]

dam no more school taxes yahooooooooooooooooooooooo