Group items tagged

They should take into consideration how well the teacher is doing at helping students get feedback and help, some teachers are not doing their part when students ask for help. Both students and teachers have to be working hard to communicate effectively and if one falls out it could cause students to flop more

Learning at home is not fun at all. Some teachers try and incorporate students at home, but then the students do not comply, but then some teachers don't even involve the students at home. It is extremely hard to stay focused at home when there are many distractions at home. I am not surprised at all by this statistic because we need to be in school. They need to shut down bars and restaurants before they even consider shutting down schools.

Learning online is much more difficult than in person. It's harder to stay focused. It's harder to keep up when most teachers focus only on the students who are in the classroom. Although I still think we should continue to keep A-F grades because some colleges aren't accepting pass/fail, and pass/fail affects your GPA.

I dont think we should change the A-F grading system, but I do think we should change either the curriculum or be more understanding and lax on the grading scale

i dont think we should change the a-f grades but i do think that we should change how are curriculum is or we should start being more flexible both teacher and students towards assignments i think we should be more open because this is all knew to us

I have noticed that online school is much more difficult than in person. Its hard to stay motivated and get all of your work get done. I feel like the teachers should try to include the online students a little bit more than they do. It will help keep everyone engaged and learning the things that they need too. I think there should still be an A-F format but maybe make it a little bit easier to take some stress of of students.

I think that the way that grades are being made is becoming more unfair, The way people get grades is based off of assignments instead of actually knowing the stuff, it is based on memorizing instead of learning. There shouldn't be an A-F, there should be a pass or fail based on knowledge, not assignments.

I think that doing work online is much harder than in person because I think I lose motivation to really do anything because some teachers feel like we are not really there and ignore us. I think we should still have A-F's because they are good but I wish the grades were curved a little because of these hard times.

Online school has its setbacks, but I feel like it's manageable. School has been relatively the same despite the setbacks, and I appreciate our teachers not giving us an overabundance of work to do. And the work they do give us helps with class. I feared that this year would be hard because everyone said the junior year is the hardest, but this has been like any other year.

I agree, with Michael, I thought this year was going to be really hard too, but I think the teachers have done a good job helping students when they need it, and have layed off on homework. Although it is hard to do online work, it is managable like Michael said.

I believe in our grading system, but for the pandemic there need to be some changes. This year has been a crazy rollercoaster and because of that, I think we need to slow down and take a step back. The school needs to lighten up on assignments and focus more on if everyone is understanding the material.

I never have F's but this year was my first year failing a class and I feel like online school is definitely one reason why, I don't even know what I'm doing in that class tbh. some teachers just don't do good enough to help us learn at home.

I think that this year just hasn't been great for school and I hope that colleges understand this year and the grades that come along with it.

I have learned that online school can be quite difficult for some people. The grading system should at least be altered to help students keep up.

I definitely think that this year has been hard, especially with school and the stress of being virtual. But I think teachers have done a really good job of trying to help students and try to be interactive with the online students (In my case at least,). We should keep our grading system, and maybe we could improve on being more flexible with grading.

I think that we should still have A-Fs. I do think that because of the pandemic there should be some changes, but I think that we need to have A-Fs especially for the kids who worked hard to get good grades it wouldn't be fair to them for trying hard and not getting credit.

I think that having A-Fs are still a good idea, but we need to be adaptable in what it means to earn these grades. Stress and anxiety have been really hard this year and it wears on not only students but teachers as well. Teachers have been really trying to help their students and we should appreciate that.

I think we should still have A-Fs. The pandemic doesn't need to change every aspect of our life. Personally, I had no issue learning at home and most people are simply using it as an excuse to slack off.

Its harder for students to ask questions when online making it harder to understand questions

i think that we should continue with the A-F grading scale. the pandemic doesn't really give you a whole lot of excuses. i mean i had some trouble doing some assignments because it was a little bit harder to do things at home without being able to freely ask questions

I think that we should still have A-Fs still. Teachers just need to be more considerate of things going on at home for students and how much students are struggling this year.

I do not think that they should be banning Dr. Seuss in schools and I do not think that he came out to be racist with his books. when he started wringing that was how people did and things were back then and today's society is so sensitive to everything. so many kids grew reading his books that I just think it is wrong.

Dr. Suess being canceled is just going too far. He wrote children's books in the 1950s, back then things like pictures in a children's book were not viewed as something that could be racist and I believe that that is not what he intended at all. These books were made for the entertainment of children.

I don't feel Dr. Seuss books were published to spread hate on certain races. I could be wrong but if it was, they would be canceled far before now. I think these books should not be banned due to the fact, if they were racist, we could learn from the past. We all know the 1950s had minstrel shows which promoted things such as black face. We do not ban those videos or other past history evidence because we learn from those things. It's all history and we can not change what happened. All we can do is learn to be better.

I agree with laceyperry067 I don't believe that there was ill intent behind the books it was just what was "acceptable" at the time. I don't think it would be right the erase the work of a good writer, but as a person of color we should neither condone nor promote those kinds of images in children's books. Books like this, with dated ideas, should be handled differently in order to teach right from wrong. We have to learn from the ugly truth in order to grow and move past it.

I think it's utterly ridiculous that they're banning his books! Maybe he was racist, maybe he wasn't. But he wouldn't put that kind of thing in a children's book!

I grew up reading Dr. Seuss books and enjoyed reading them. It's insane to think that they are now being canceled. Granted, I feel like all we can do is move past this and learn from it. However, I do not think that erasing his literature is a good idea.

it feels strange that they are not going to be sold

A few things. First off, as a response to Zeak as far as my knowledge is concerned, the books are still going to be sold. (Unless a business decides not to sell them.) What's happened is that they aren't going to be printed anymore, new copies aren't going to be made. Second, as a general thing does everyone actually know the books that aren't being printed? None of them are particularly famous, except for maybe "And to Think that I saw it on Mulberry Street." As well, it's not some outside force making the Seuss estate stop publishing these books, they willingly decided to do so. No-one is being "Cancelled," here. As well, it's things like this (https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/03/05/books/03DRSEUSS5/merlin_184489674_86a1b9c7-d76d-45d0-b52c-0976d003a730-mobileMasterAt3x.jpg) (https://smartcdn.prod.postmedia.digital/nationalpost/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/If-I-Ran-the-Zoo.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=400) that are the reasons the books are being pulled from shelves, which have fairly racist and stereotyped depictions of Chinese people.

I do not think that if dr seuss was that liberal he wouldn't have intentionally tried to portray them badly, i feel like a lot of people are taking a lot of things to far they just try to nick pick everything out to find something wrong with someone and come after to just to great drama.

I do not think that his books should be banned because his books were more of its time. The books were for children to read and enjoy not for them to read and be racist.

I don't think that we should cancel Dr.Suess. His books were fine before and then suddenly everyone hates them? If you are offended by his books for some reason, then just don't read them, it's as simple as that. You shouldn't go as far as banning them.

I think its weird to stop producing a kids picture book because kids really don't take books that deeply. Plus at such a young age the kids don't understand much of today's society so it makes no sense to stop producing books that were made in the 50's.

i think cancel culture is absurd. yes, there are offensive things everywhere, but cancelling them won't rid the world of it. i think it's good that people are recognizing certain things as... insulting, but banning childrens' books?

Children are very impressionable at a young age, and supplying them with books with such messages may put racial stereotypes into their heads.

I read these books as a kid and it didn't influence me to believe stereotypes, I just read them for fun like a little kid would and it had no effect on my future.

I think that children shouldn't be reading things that may affect their opinions on people, which I understand how these books potentially could. However, I was not negatively affected by any of these books and can also see how people may just see them as children's books. I see other people commenting about how things were different in the 1950s and that is why it should be allowed, but things are different now. We don't need racist children's books from the past, and if that's Dr. Suess then I feel like he was banned for a good reason.

I agree, Mitt Romney was the clear winner. I watched the entire live debate at home and Mitt Romney was on fire. He was very prepared, but it didn't seem scripted. At the beginning of the show it explained how all debates are very detailed in their scripts, even with random comments to their opponent. He was very engaged in the conversation and stayed on the different topics and specifically pointed out his differences between what he and Obama were saying. It was a very interesting debate. The both had a lot to say, but over all, Romney was at the top of his game while Obama was a little out of it and didn't seem quite as interested.

People keep saying Mitt Romney won but I honestly don't think he did I am not judging them on how well they speak I am judging on who has the beliefs I do and who will do what I believe right for this country and in that case I believe Obama "won" the debate because no one can really win the debate granted one can look more prepared or more interested and I'll agree that Romney did do that but he didn't say the things I wanted to hear from the future president Obama did

In all honesty, from what the article mentioned, Obama did not say much to discredit Romney. I'm wondering if Obama is going to hold out and save the infamous 47% mark, vague political outline of his plan, and any other anti-Romney ideas until a later date within this election. Also, Rainie, as for not being able to win a debate, I disagree for the most part, but not in full. Political ideals fall into, "Who wins a political debate." The debate itself, is just getting people to realize what policies they believe would work. This is one situation that I agree, there can be no winner. But as to most debates, there are clear winners.

Exactly I agree with most of that Payton, I was specifically talking about this debate. I don't need them to say everything in that one debate because I don't just listen to the debate to get my information I listen to them on just regular speeches and articles all that good stuff and out of all of that not just the debate I think people should make their decision. Just my opinion

That is absolutely ridiculous that the school would ban that girl for shaving her head. Since when is baldness a violation of dress code? She was supporting her friend going through cancer and I think that should be rewarded instead of punished.

This is sad, she was just trying to support her friend.

I feel like there should be more regulation and rules but we should not go on full lockdown because it could cause many businesses to crash and close down.

even though many feel as though we should go into full lock down, I don't think it would be the best idea. especially because we had tried it in the beginning and people were still wandering around and two, we can't keep digging a hole for the economy

I think if we go into a full lockdown, our economy won't be in the best place for the country and I don't think we are mentally strong enough to deal with a full lockdown.

This is why I believe that stimulus checks are necessary. Yes, many Americans would be left without an income if a lockdown was put in place, but that's why a stimulus check would be helpful. Money provided to those who need it during a lockdown would ultimately help enforce a lockdown long enough to see Covid-19 numbers go down.

I believe that if we go into a lockdown, our economy wouldn't be the same anymore and would get worst over time.

I think that if we go into full lock down, people will freak out even more than they already are. Everyone would stock up on everything and we all know how that went with the toilet paper last time we tried to be on lock down.

We absolutely need to go into full lock-down. Concerns about the economy, in my opinion, are entirely bunk. It's saying that it's okay for people to risk their lives unnecessarily so that a line can go up on a graph. I'd hope people have learned something, and would know that they don't need to hyperstock on certain things.

I think if we would have just gone on a nationwide full lockdown for 2 or 3 weeks at the beginning of this, we would be much better off. I think it would be a good idea, but with how far the pandemic has progressed, I'm not sure it would help as much as it would have a long time ago.

It could have been better if we did something right away when Covid first started and not waited to do something. We could probably have stopped it from being so dangerous,

In my opinion a nation wide lock-down will not do anything but harm. There are still millions of Americans that have not been able to recover form the first wave of lock-down, as stated in the story up above. And i know that a huge counter argument is that the government can just pay us more during a lock-down. While that is true that would put us further and further into debt that we are struggling to get out of. A Lot of it comes down to the people, by that i mean that people have to take others into consideration, wearing a mask, social distance. That way Americans can still go to work and provide for their family's without the help of the government.

I agree with you Zoe, but in order for that to work, every country would have had to do a lockdown. and sadly we didn't know the severity back then so people still had an excuse to be ignorant.

I believe a full lockdown is necessary if people ever want to go back to living their lives as "normal" again. There are plenty of other countries living covid free as they did a strict lockdown in the beginning, as we should have done. A few weeks of a strict lockdown isn't going to kill us just as it didn't kill anyone in the other countries where strict lockdowns occurred.

I feel like another lockdown would help if not eliminate the virus but like last time not everyone cooperated and if history shows that it won't be worth locking down again then there's not really a point. Another impact of locking down like some comments and brought up is the economy getting severely worse than it already is. In a perfect fantasy land bills would freeze, everyone would get stimulus checks that wouldn't run out and the virus would go away but that is all super unlikely if another lockdown occurs.

while we cant go on a full lockdown, there needs to be tighter restrictions on people, or heavier responses to keep infections down

I think that going into lockdown or some kind of restriction would help slow the spread of the virus, but not stop it. People would not cooperate to stop the spread of the virus completely. Other countries that had strict Covid restrictions are doing much better than the United States, and some have even eliminated covid completely. If the US could do that it might work, but the economy would still get worse during the lockdown.

If the outbreak is getting worse I think that we should do some sort of lock down. Maybe some restriction so that less people are in large groups so that we can control the virus.

Since we can't go into a full lockdown I think they should make the restrictions more known if people aren't wearing a mask in public I think they should be fined but, I think the amount of money should be high so people will think twice.

I'm not real sure on what to do in this siutation. If we shut down our country, our economy will go down. If wes stay open, more covid cases. I dont know which one is worse.

I don't think the US can handle another lockdown. The economy tanked the first time and I cant imagine how bad it'll get if we lockdown again

we should not lock down again it will hurt the economy

I think we should have more restrictions but I don't think we should go into full lockdown or else people will lose jobs and businesses

I feel like we haven't been on a full lock down, in some states they are more serious about COVID, in others there's not even a mask mandate.

I thinnk people dont realize how big corona is in the US because of ignorance, lack of respect and decency, and or just they don't know. If we need to lock down, we need to lockdown. No uts no butts no coconuts. Fighting this is what got us here in the first place. We could be like other countries where they have respect for each other and themselves, and corona is almost gone or very low.

There are definitely a lot of things to consider, like our economy, if we were to go into lock down. I just don't thing it's possible right now but we should still have restrictions.

I feel like we should but are not able to go on another lock down

No we should not go on lockdown again because no matter how much we do that it will slow it down but it wont stop it and it also will just go right back up one the lockdown is over.

things are starting to calm down more than before and were just learning to live with it as we do any other virus. With the vaccine now people are going to feel safer and hopefully, it actually will be saving lives. If it gets worse a shutdown may be the best option, but right now learning to live with it is the better option.

I think we could go on lockdown again but there is no point anymore because we should of done that right away when it first started and people are getting the vaccines already so it doesn't really matter if we do or don't.

I don't think we need a full-scale hardcore lockdown, we do need tighter enforcement of mandates and stricter punishments for not following public safety, I get people don't want to, but that one person who didn't wear their mask could end up getting your loved ones sick, if everyone just followed guidelines we would get out of this funk sooner

The country is divided over the false binary of financial and health security. Reopening is not enough to ensure economic prosperity, but setting a lockdown is also not enough to contain the virus and prevent needless death.

Another lock down would just cause more discomfort and an economic fall. With people not being able to work it would be very difficult to keep the economy great and balanced. If another lock down was to occur more people would be bothered because they just want to go back to normal life.

I personally don't think we need to go on full lockdown again especially since the new covid vaccine. i think that it's okay to lift some rules and regulations on public places, but we still need to wear masks and stay safe until the pandemic is completely over

I don't think we should go into another full lockdown with closing down non-essential stores because too many businesses had to shutdown or almost had to after the first lockdown.

I don't think we should have to lock down again, we're in the process of releasing the vaccine, and less people are dying

I don't think we should go back t=into another lockdown because I don't think our economy will do very good and I think some peoples mental health won't be in the best place if we do another lockdown

If we went into a lockdown our economy would suffer tremendously and there is no point. If we go into lockdown then I don't really see the point of all of the vaccinations and all of the other mandates we have.

Having another lock down would just put the United States into a far worse situation. More people would lose jobs, more people would go into debt, and our economic status would fall tremendously. I agree with luke in the fact that going into lockdown would just make the vaccine pointless because nobody would be going out anymore.

no we will lose alot of money

I dont think we should go into lockdown because if we expose our bodies to the virus steadily and take vitamins and antibodies our immune system will be stronger and get closer to fighting off the virus.

i think blocking it was 50/50, good for the kids that are addicted to changing their status, but bad for people who are on it during free time or lunch.

I agree with Andrew because there are a lot of people that abuse he privilege, but then there are the ones that only get on when told that they can or in free time.

I think that our school system is going way Wacko with this, with Facebook, yeah block it, but you should block it on the school's wifi not the chromes. you should be able to get on at you house. What is the harm there...? Its not like you are getting distracted from a teacher talking..... With the cell phones. Yeah, thats whatever... I understand that you aren't supposed to have them out during class, but only being aloud to have them during lunch and before or after school, it makes me feel like we are back in Jr. High, that was their policy. I even remember i went to work Kirn's show and i forgot that there was that rule and so i was walking down the hallway texting, i looked right at the teacher and said that i was in high school, she laughed and said sorry and gave it back. But i think with this rule the students will feel like that are being treated as jr high students again and i know that would make me frustrated. But not having a relaxed rule on cell phones students will just get super mad and well, teacher's and Administrators,, You're gonna have a bad time...

I agree with Eric, it should just be blocked on the wifi, not the Chromes themselves because now the people who brought their own computers can get on facebook, or the people with internet on their phones can access it that way. So the school didn't block the students %100, they just made an obstacle for the students to get through, because I think we all know someone is going to find a way around it soon, like they did last year.

I agree with Eric and Alex as well, just block it on their wifi during the school day.

It does feel like we are still in Junior High. but how do most Students? certainly not like they are in high school. If people would act their age then you could use this statement. take a look around the hallways and you know what i am talking about. And when you are on facebook or any other website it is a distraction because you are zoned out of everything that is going on around you and ten minutes can easily turn into an hour or a couple of hours

a good 3/4 of the conversations during class periods... maybe not everyone's but at least mine has been about getting around the the Facebook block. They say Facebook is distracting well it is for certain people that get on it constantly but what really is distracting is people constantly talking about how they are trying to get back on Facebook through the chromes. That's not distracting a select few it's distracting us all.

I feel like if the school has such a big problem with Facebook they need to realize that although blocking Facebook from chromes will stop many students from getting on it the majority of us do have smart phones. Meaning we can still get on Facebook. I think that if a student doesn't know how to control their use on facebook during school they will have to deal with the consequences and that it wasn't necessary to block the site, it's called responsibility and if someone doesn't know how to be responsible then that's their problem. Also I don't understand why students aren't able to get on Facebook outside of school?

I don't feel like blocking Facebook was very beneficial. High school is supposed to be preparing us for college or a career, in which we will have access to anything we want. How are we supposed to know how to limit distractions if we don't have the opportunity to do so now? On another note, the students who aren't doing their work now with Facebook unblocked still aren't generally going to do it even without that particular distraction.

I agree with Rainie, Jaidlyn, and Olivia. The school board and the administrators don't know what we are thinking in class, yes they might see that a good portion of our students are on Facebook, but also, a good majority is paying attention and actually learning, I personally find Facebook a good tool for school, because there has been multiple times where I have no clue what so ever on what is going on so I go and ask some of my friends that are in college and ask them, and also my friends explain it so much better than Teacher's do, I feel as though most of the times teacher's just speak it so they can get paid, they don't go in depth to it. So I feel also that if they were teaching more hands on there would be less Facebook usage, well, at least there would be if it was unblocked.

Sorry.. I realized that I didn't finish.. With what Rainie said, that is so true you can't sit through a whole class period with out hearing, "This is peeveing me off!" or "There has to be a way around it, that will be my project this weekend, to figure out what how to get around this dumb thing!"

Personally, if the schools are trying to prepare us for the future, then why limit what we can do, and not do with the chromes? How does limiting us teach us good decision making skills? I mean, in the future, if you are at work and spend 4 hours of your time at work on facebook, you are gonna get fired. We should have it just to learn that we do not need it. Plus, students are just going to move onto the next thing. Like there are not a billion other things we are going to get on?

I completely agree with Payton. There are so many things that aren't blocked and we can move right on to the next thing.

I totally agree with both Eric and Payton, also what about using our phones, Ipods, and personal computers to get on FB at school. An I know most of the people on FB use it to waste time, what about the students using it during free time for good things like making a FB page for a club or a FB event for a soccer game?

I think that the teacher should be able to have the gun but very protected from anybody except themselves. The teachers should always should check them everyday so they know if its still there.

In my opinion teachers with guns is a good idea, although I don't want some teachers thinking that gives them a sense of bigger authority.

It is a good idea for them to have guns, it would help with safety.

I don't agree with the right of just teachers being able to carry a gun if someone takes a 4 hour class to know to take the gun out and use it in the right way, someone that is professionally trained should be hired because nobody knows if a teacher is going to be able to take a life of someone else.

In my opinion, teachers having the right to carry a weapon is okay. For protection and safety purposes, I completely agree. I think it would give us a sense of reassurance, knowing that we would have a fighting chance, if a person(s) with a weapon entered the school.

I think that teachers should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon to school, if the case is that the first responders would arrive to the scene too late.

I think that its dangerous that the teachers have guns but in this situation I think its okay. The best thing about this situation is that the students don't know where the guns are and how to access them. Also another reason that the guardian plan is so necessary for this town in Texas is because the response time is so long and I would definatley agree that the teachers should be able to have guns.

I would take the side that I think guns would be an okay idea. I think that before a teacher is handed a gun they should be trained on how to use it. I also think that the guns should be put in a safe, somewhere out of the reach of the children. But on the other hand I believe that their should be an officer in every school, I think this would prevent a lot of violence.

Although it might be risk to have teachers carry guns at school, it could also potentially save lives because they could be the ones to stop a shooting or whatever else may happen in the school. I think that as long as the teachers keep them hidden and everyone is on board, then it should be okay.

I believe that some teachers, who have gun permits and all the legal things, should be able to carry guns. But I think they should be hidden so that students cannot get to them.

After viewing the video and reading the article, I am for the fact that the teachers at this school should be able to have guns because they're in a rural area. It takes the first responder 30 minutes to get to the emergency site. A lot of "bad" can happen in 30 minutes. Although I previously stated I was for the carrying of guns, I also am against because I think that if the teachers are going to be carrying guns, they need to be properly trained. If they're not properly trained, bad things can happen too. So all in all, I am for it if the teachers and school board members receive proper training.

I don't think teachers should have guns, because the gun violence will increase. More kids will think they could start to carry weapons, and most schools already have an officer.

I think teachers should be able to have guns in safes in their class room for safety reasons.

I don't think teachers should have guns because I think gun violence might increase and we already have a cop that has a gun so I don't think it's necessary for all teachers to have them

I think that teachers should be able to have guns. they would be protected and i dont think that them having guns would cause more violence because they would be using it for safety of them and the children at there school so there teaching student to be responsible and how to act it that kind of situation.

I think teachers having guns would be a good idea as long as they keep them put away until needed.

I do not think that teachers should have guns because some teachers get mad easily and we don't know what they would do with them. Also students could be looking through a cabinet and find it and tell other students who might take it and possibly use it against the school.

I think teachers should have guns to protect themselves and others but they should check the gun everyday.

Teachers are teachers and there is other people that should take care of violence and shooting at schools. I wouldn't feel more safe if more people start carrying guns I would feel more threaten. If something should it be more difficult to get a gun in some of the states.

I think that it's a good idea to an extent. There are some teachers who, under the circumstances, probably would be to afraid, or just in shock to act in the situation. Over all though, I think it is a good idea.

Being in a rural town it is easier to approve guns and I beileve is ok, in small towns everybody knoes everybody. Many people "Pass through" small towns where there isnt much authority and public safety in the town but there is in the town miles down the highway. Therefore in rural schools I think it is right to be able to carry guns for the students saftey. In urban areas there is public safety patroling the town on a regular basis, there is police inside schools with guns and weapons to protect studnets and staff. In Urban areas I do not think it should not be allowed for teachers to carry guns inside schools.

I think teachers should be able to carry concealed guns, but I also think they should have background checks to make sure they are good people to have guns. I would feel safer knowing that a good person has a way to protect us.

To Sydney - I agree. I think that it should be an optional thing and if you do carry a gun as a teacher you must take a class/course in order for to be able to permit it in the school building.

I think giving licensed teachers guns in rural areas would be beneficial. It may be simpler to have one or two police officer in the school, but have the teachers have guns would also be okay as long as they were trained with a gun and could handle an intense situation. As some were saying about how students might find the gun, the school would probably have a locked up location for the gun, therefore the students would not be able to access it.

I don't think teachers having guns is a good idea because they aren't trained properly in that area. That's why we have a school cop who should be the first to handle situations like that. I'm sure if something like that happened here there wouldn't be an issue with the amount of time it would take the police to get here.

I agree that teachers should be allowed to have guns, but check on the gun everyday to make sure students don't mess with the gun

I don't think every teacher needs to carry a gun but the district should designates certain teachers to allow them to carry guns. They should also be properly trained and be monitored. In the time it takes police to arrive to a call for a school shooting countless students could already be dead, but with the designated teachers there they could put a stop to the shooter.

bllandon- I agree. I believe that certain courses and classes should be taken in order to be an armed teacher. If i had to trust my life to a teacher in a dire situation like a school shooting, I'd prefer it to be in then hands of a calm under pressure, capable shooter.

I believe that teachers should be allowed to carry concealed weapons but as long as they have some type of professional training. It wouldn't do any use to carry a gun of you can't use it and use it safely. Also the gun should be used as a last resort in an extreme situation. I agree with Emily when she's says some students might try and take it but it should definitely be in a safe place where no one but the teacher would have access to it.

I think it is a good idea. The only concern I have is the teacher viewing him/herself to have more authority over others. The students should not know which teacher carry's a weapon. Though the teacher should have to go through many training courses in order to do so. It's one thing to carry a gun, it's another to kill a person and be in a firefight. Not everyone can handle it.

I Think Teachers should be allowed to Concealed Carry as long as they pass certain requirements, like in the video the administrator says they have to be accurate up to a certain point in order to be able to carry said gun. As well as the do training he mentioned that the teachers have been trained in hostage situations. In my opinion with the correct training and practice it would be a great idea.

I think teachers should not be aloud to carry guns we don't live in a small town in Texas where it would take 30 mins. for people to respond .Plus most school already have a trained officers in their schools we don't need untrained teachers to carry weapons.

In regards to what fwyldes753 said, I believe that teachers shouldn't be able to carry guns because we don't live in a rural area and cops are in a close distance. I wouldn't trust teachers to carry a weapon. We also have a school cop that would respond immediately.

I think schools teachers should be able to have concealed weapons on them as long as they go through a gun safety course and if they are too far away to be able to wait for police.

I think that teachers should be allowed to carry guns, but under very strict circumstances. The gun should be on the teacher at all times (never put in a cabinet or a safe, as kids could more easily find a way to get to it), the teachers should go through gun safety and training (which they apparently do), only teachers with gun permits should be allowed to have them, and they should be completely concealed at all times. Although I think this idea is most likely going to stay in rural schools (they have less students, and are farther away from law enforcement), I could see it traveling into city schools in the future. So yeah, all in all I don't think this is a bad thing at all. It could save a lot of lives in the event of a school shooting.

I think that there intentions are great and in a rural town with not many armed forces around to help it might work. But what if a kid were to get ahold of it? I believe that they'd have to be in a safe where the students don't realize what it is or can't see it. But with that they won't have the whole quick to help plan they are hoping for. It would be faster then the cops getting there though.

I think that if the location of that school is very dangerous then teachers should be able to carry guns but out of sight from students at all times. because if students can see the gun, it would make them too uncomfortable to even learn.

After viewing the video and reading this article, I feel that it is appropriate for staff and board members of a school to carry guns. As for schools located in a area where first responders are able to access the situation more quickly, I don't think it would be as necessary. Although I think school teachers carrying guns is a good idea, I believe that it only makes sense for these teachers to go through the proper training before doing so.

I think that it should be allowed for some teachers in rural areas to carry guns. As long as the guns are kept in a safe place and locked away from the students. I don't think that every teacher needs a gun but because they are in a rural area and it will take longer for police to get they should have someone there who can protect them the moment a situation happens. We have a police officer at our school at all times ready to protect us, why shouldn't they have someone who can protect them. If teachers are allowed to carry guns they should have to go through a class/course before being allowed to have a gun at the school.

I'm not sure about teachers being able to carry guns in school. You have to put into factor how it would be concealed, which teachers have access and or carry it, and things like if the students would think it was okay for them to bring some sort of protection, whatever that may be. I don't think it's a bad idea, I just think people would have to be much more cautious in all senses. The barrier between feeling safe, nervous, or afraid around someone would be different for everyone. Carrying weapons might also deter some of the schools wanted achievements for the future, for example attendance averages.

I don't know how I feel about this, I think scientist are super smart people but there not using there knowledge to the best of there abilities... I personally find making animals live longer and possibly in the future creating a "medicine" or treatment to transform adult cells back to there embryonic form disturbing. It will probably cost a whole lot of money to. Its awesome how far they have come, but its weird when you mess with the life span of animals... it could also mess with natural selection.

I think that it's amazing that science has come this far and they might be able to do this, but I don't think that we should reverse aging because we don't know the side effects on humans. I think they should just know they can do it but not use it because it could be harmful.

"The breakthrough could also help people stay healthier for longer. The ageing population means that the risk of developing age-related diseases, such as dementia, cancer and heart disease also rises. But if the body could be kept younger for longer then it could prevent many deadly diseases for decades." It has a lot of pros and cons to this i think they shouldn't mess with the life span of make cells younger because that means there will be more people and the world could come over populated. But living longer would help a lot because you will learn more and be able to educate young people with better knowledge

i have thought from the beginning that covid will not disappear. but it will get better like the flu, thanks to vaccines and people becoming immune.

I think this article kinda showed me a perspective that I didn't really think about. I kinda just blew off everyone saying it was gonna go away because obviously, that's just people being optimistic. But reading about the number of serious cases covid/flu wise made me realize that it is managable.

I thought from the beginning that covid will not disappear and life wouldn't be life anymore, but I wasn't going to think about bad so I thought to myself, it will get better like the flu, thanks to vaccines older people have a better chance of becoming immune.

I did not expect that the covid deaths were going to be that high than the flu deaths until I saw the graph that the article has. I'm glad that the covid vaccine is out so it can help sick people.

I also believed that it was going to be very hard to get rid of or at least control covid but now I realize how our Nation has used all types of advanced technology and knowledge to stop it. Ieven see how we have achieved such as great overcome, the cure.

"For fully vaccinated people, serious illness from Covid is extremely rare, much rarer than serious illness from the seasonal flu." i think this is great! seems like the vaccine is working! I have a question though... any update on the age limit for vaccines? i know when they first started, it was 16+ and then it was 18+... in china, they were vaccinating children as young as two.

I believe that covid cases will happen even when they are decreasing. I looked at the chart and was surprised at the difference between covid and all of the other diseases.

I think the thought that Covid is just going to disappear with the preventative measures has mostly just been a necessary lie or at least has intentionally not fully been explained just for the consequences of people seeing it as never going away. People already don't want to follow guidelines, but if it's never going to go away I think that would embolden a lot of people to completely disregard guidelines unrightfully.

I think that if we had acted faster and with more intention at the beginning of the outbreak, we could've been back to normal already. Australia had some of the harshest quarantine restrictions before things really got bad and they're essentially back to normal already. As long as we don't get overconfident maybe we can avoid extending this quarantine longer that it needs to be... again.

In the first few weeks, I did think covid would just blow over but after a year of living with it clearly didn't. I think that as time passes hopefully in the next year or two the vaccines will help create immunity and keep people safe and eventually we can return to a somewhat normal life. I've heard the analogy of covid being like how airport security came to be. A sad tragedy occurred but because of that event, we learned to put precautions in place to prevent it from happing. I feel like once covid gets under control we will be better equipped to not only survive another virus if that is the case but we are also better equipped to prevent the sickness and death from existing ones as well.

We're still gonna be dealing with losses while covid is around but the vaccine can hopefully start to clear this up for people. So I think that within the next year these cases will go down.

This article was definitely an interesting read. I think that even with the vaccine being given out it will take time to get back to normal, especially when people are still disregarding safety guidelines.

I agree with tsilva588 because we are still gonna be dealing with losses while covid is around. But the whole world hopes that the vaccine can hopefully start to clear this up for people because I think within the next year these cases are going to go down.

With the Covid vaccine rolling out, I think the number of fatalities from Covid will go down, But I think the number of people getting infected won't be going down by a large percentage since people don't trust the covid vaccine and people even then don't want to wear a mask. I think life won't be normal for the next 2-3 years.

This article was interesting to read and very true, it won't go away completely but hopefully, soon we will be going back to normalcy. We have been learning to live with it and just like any virus, it is going to die out but we should always be cautious no matter what. Keep clean and take care of ourselves, as it overall doesn't have as much of an effect on healthier people.

I agree, while yes it may still go down, this pandemic reminds us how bad things can get, we are lucky to brush with a not so deadly disease, yes people still die from it, but the mortality rate is exceedingly high, thanks to huge advancements in medical research and development, and, on the optimistic side of things, many good ideas and products came out of this, restaurants being able to deliver, seeing loved ones on a screen to be able to connect with them more easily, and widespread connectivity with everyone.

this was interesting because the situation was put into perspective. They say that is should be kinda normal around the summer and that is such a good new because that means senior year will be more normal. I was kinda hesitant about the vaccine but apparently it is really helping even though there are some people who still do get sick is has come down to less people.

I thought this article was interesting because it helped me gain a better perspective of COVID-19. Even with vaccines coming out, the world will not be put back on its axis because of all the damage that´s been done. It will take a while for things to return normally. Even with the decreasing number of cases, there will still be people who get it. It will still spread around like any other virus. I knew it was obviously a bad problem but it really put it into perspective for me.

If we as a society won't allow juveniles, sixteen year olds in particular, to vote or to sign their name to a legal contract and the justification for that restriction is because they aren't "mature enough" or that they "don't/won't understand" the lasting consequences then how can we expect them to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime? If sixteen year olds are old enough and mature enough to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime then shouldn't they also understand the lasting consequences to the things I mentioned above?

I agree with Jermey, we need to not set a double standard. We need to rehabilitate young offenders, because if you are not a hard criminal before you go to prison for 20 years of one of the most impressionable times of your life, you will come out of it as one. These are kids that probably grew up in broken homes, and this was the only path they were going to take, because it was the only one they saw. So lets rehabilitate, and give them productive lives, not ones that are going to keep the cycle going.

I agree with you for the most part Natalie. Although if it's a really small crime and the juvenile is unarmed, then they should go to juvenile court. But for crimes bigger than that example, they need to be charged as an adult would be charged. There's actually this reality TV show (that I can't remember the name of) where, in each episode, a group of kids who are on the streets and in gangs, etc. are taken into a jail as a form of rehabilitation, and they go through a day of being in jail and they also hear stories from people who are in jail at that time, and they always say that one doesn't want to end up in jail. I think there was one particular episode where a girl went with her mother to watch her mother plan a funeral for her. It's pretty interesting, and it does seem to help a lot.

Jared, I understand what you mean by some kids growing up in broken homes and having bad lives growing up BUT you always have the option to not go down that road. You have the option to try to better yourself and make something of yourself. Although most people don't do that, they don't always pull a gun on a cop. That is a serious offense and I feel like you guys are so focused on the fact that he's our age that you're blinded by what he did. Jeremy, I don't understand what you're saying. I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me so if you could maybe clarify that would be great. Thanks. Kirstina, I do get what you're saying. Most kids need to see what can happen but this kid is plenty old enough to know right from wrong.

I realize that, but the people that are the most likely to pull a gun are the ones that have the most messed up life beforehand in most cases. We should try them as children, and try to rehabilitate them. Before your 18, and move, a large part of what you do, and know is influenced by your parents, and other senor figures in your life, and even friends Until you reach adulthood, its hard to be your own person, especially in the environment that generates this type of person. There is the odd person in there that is just a bad person, and it is all there fault, but we need to try to rehabilitate them as a child, not as an adult.

Jeremy, there's a major difference between crime and legal contracts. They don't have anything to do with each other. Sentencing teens like adults is important because it protects us. It's a safety issue. Plus it tells other kids, "You break the law, you get in huge trouble." And they don't allow people under 18 to sign contracts without parental consent to protect them from making stupid decisions.

Natalie I'm sorry for the confusion. I was replying more to the article then directly to your post. To clarify I disagree with your position about putting juveniles into adult court that commit violent crimes. At least with the current system we have in place. Kirstina I know there is a major difference between committing a violent crime and signing legal contracts/voting. That's my entire point. If a sixteen year old is not mentally mature or responsible enough to understand the long term consequences of voting then they most definitely aren't mature or responsible enough to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime like shooting at a police officer, an act that take far more mental maturity to fully understand when compared to voting. As long as our society wants to say that sixteen and seventeen year olds aren't mature enough to understand the consequences of something like voting then how can we expect them to understand these violent crimes that they commit. I'm all for placing older teens in adult court when they commit an adult crime but only if they aren't subjected to an unfounded and unreasonable double standard. Either sixteen year olds are on the same maturity level as adults or they aren't.

i think it is totally understandable because it shows that this kid is planning on doing crimes in the future.

i think that they did the right thing by arresting him if you are 16 then you are old enough to realize that shooting a cop isn't a good idea and you will have a punishment for it

Natalie i agree with your point of view on this article. If he is 16 he already knows what he is doing. We are all in high school and know well the consequences if we did that. I also agree with what you said about his background. It seems like this is a record and he already knows the consequences. So in my opinion he should be charged for adult crime.

I believe this kid should get charged as an adult because like they said in the article. He is a threat to society and to himself.

I agree with Natalie, everyone in the right mind should know shooting at someone; especially a police officer is wrong. And know their will be consequences to follow. So yes, juveniles should be charged as an adult depending on the circumstances.

I agree with charging juveniles as adults. People should know the right from wrongs at an early age and receive the consequences though an understanding of what they did wrong.

I agree with Melissa, people should know the difference from right and wrong, they definitely know the incentives for doing wrong as well.

Jeremy, I don't quite understand where you stand on the issue. You said that you realize there's a difference but then you said, and I quote, "Kirstina I know there is a major difference between committing a violent crime and signing legal contracts/voting. That's my entire point. If a sixteen year old is not mentally mature or responsible enough to understand the long term consequences of voting then they most definitely aren't mature or responsible enough to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime like shooting at a police officer, an act that take far more mental maturity to fully understand when compared to voting." You're contradicting yourself there and in your original comment.

Obviously there is something wrong with society if we have mere teenagers pulling out weapons and assaulting people to the point of felony. I think that the punishment is completely fair for such a sick individual. Criminal behaviors are not taught, but learned so he had to have learned this from someone he knew or a parent with a criminal record. Either way, what he did was wrong and he deserves to be behind bars.

I agree with charging minors as adults because this article is one of many where the felon was a minor. I did research over this in another class and i found many articles where they were charging a minor with adult charges because of how brutal the murders they committed where. Like i argued in my other paper "is your loved one's life any less valuable just because they got murdered by a minor"

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/03/sport/football/dutch-linesman-killed-football/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 Here's another case of teenagers committing violent crimes. They beat this man to death. There were two 15 year-olds and a 16 year-old.

they should charge minors as adults because they will be out in the streets again and doing more crimies. its there own fault that they get charged thats why they should face charges alone.

I think if you do the crime, you pay the time whenever the government wants you to.

i say same charge for everyone no matter what

if you're willing to make the decision to break the law and commit a serious crime with the consequences of an adult then you should definitely suffer the same consequences no matter your age.

if anyone commits a crime they should be charged the same no matter what age

I agree with the idea that no matter your age, if you commit a serious crime, you should suffer the consequences. Say a teenager decides to murder someone... Just because they're a minor, should they be charged with a lesser offense than an adult would have? NO. If you are willing, capable, and have the mental capacity and audacity to commit such crimes, you deserve prison and whatever other punishment you receive.

Great discussion guys! Here is some more food for thought. People who do bad things need punishment, but there is plenty of scientific evidence that teenage brains are in a state of development that doesn't excuse bad acts, but can help explain it. http://goo.gl/MXEAd Ask yourself if you are the "same person" you were when you were 5 years old? I can tell you, you will make decisions differently when you are 25, and probably 65.

This is a good point i have to say. That's why I think we need to do our best to reform kids, not just punish them. Make it clear that their will be consequences, but try them as hardened, adult criminals is not the way to do it.

This is an extremely touchy subject. It's hard to lay out things like this without stepping on toes of other controversial subjects like voting age and military eligability