SMUHSD Focusing on Equality & Acceptance

A cultural shift is in the San Mateo Union High School District is underway, as students are leading an effort to make their schools more inclusive and accepting of all lifestyles.

Schools throughout the district are overhauling long-standing customs such as how students are recognized at the annual homecoming event, the design of the former powder-puff football game, the allowed graduation garb and signs on bathroom doors which welcome transgender students, among other efforts.
These changes to some of the pillars of the high school experience represent a larger effort by students, teachers, staff and administrators to move away from cultural norms of previous generations, in an attempt to create a more welcoming environment for all students, said Superintendent Kevin Skelly
Ghajarrahimi said she and her fellow classmates feel empowered by the ability to change traditions they do not feel are representatives of their generation’s beliefs.
“It makes me feel very good to see the growth of my school,” she said. “We can see the changes that have happened and the student body feels like their voices are being heard more.”
(Ghajarrahimi is a student at Aragon High School.)

To read the entire article :http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/lnews/2015-11-02/high-school-students-drive-cultural-revolution-inclusion-acceptance-equity-become-focus-of-new-campus-lifestyle/1776425152863.html

Do you think this is an accurate representation of all the high schools in the San Mateo High School? Do you think that the changes that are being made are inclusive and fair to all student? Do you feel that your voice and student body is equally heard as Aragon High School? Are there different solutions to these issues, if so what do you suggest? Are there other issues the district should focus on to create a more inclusive environment at high schools?

US House Speaker Paul Ryan says budget deal has been reached

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35114088

United States Speaker of the House Paul Ryan recently announced that Congress and the White House have reached an agreement on a new spending bill of approximately 1.1 trillion USD that addresses both Republican and Democrat policy and initiatives. This new spending bill will carry the US government through the 2016 budget year, and if it passes, will prevent yet another government shutdown. As written, the bill sees a proposed increase in defense spending and extension of tax credits, and to the dismay of more conservative members of congress does not deny federal funding to Planned Parenthood, nor does it allocate funds to tighter screening of Syrian refugees entering the country. What's more, the bill includes proposed changes to visa requirements for those traveling to the US, allows for more special interest tax breaks, a lift on a 40 year old crude oil export ban, and delays and suspension on taxes meant to fund Obama's Affordable Cart Act. The budget package, which includes both the spending bill and a new tax bill, will be voted on by the end of the week. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan described the process of reaching a consensus on the spending bill a "crap sandwich".

How will the new spending bill affect both foreign and domestic policy? Was there a clear winner (Republican vs Democrat) in terms of the spending bill? Is the bill's increased funding to defense spending justified/warranted? What does the process leading up to the creation of the new spending bill say about contemporary US politics, especially in context of political parties? Are you satisfied with the new spending bill, and if not what would you amend?

Fact-checking the Las Vegas GOP debate

Linda Qiu - PolitiFact

On Tuesday night in Las Vegas the Republican presidential candidates once again took the stage for their final debate of 2015. The first debate since the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, national security and strategies to defeat ISIS were anticipated to be and were contentious topics of debate. In personal jabs at recent statements or voting records, each candidate asserted the merits or their position on each issue while attacking other candidates' proposed solutions.

However, many facts, statistics, or other things cited by candidates during the debate simply weren't true. The website PolitiFact is dedicated to analyzing politicians' statements and assessing their factuality, picking out some key points from the debate and with this being the final debate before the primary season officially begins, most of what candidates have said will be what sticks with their base and will be quoted as "fact" into the election season.

What impact does truthfulness (or lack there of) of candidates public assertions have on the public during the election season?

Should candidates be reprimanded for incorrect statements?

Where is the line between bending the truth for a political purpose and actual slander?

If restrictions were enacted, could candidates simply misspeaking put them at risk?