<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" >
   <channel>
       <title>Speakouts</title>
       <atom:link href="http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/rss/speakouts" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
       <link>http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/</link>
       <description><![CDATA[Annenberg Classroom : Resources For America's Teachers ]]> </description>
       <ttl>60</ttl>
   <item>
       <title><![CDATA[ Should the government loosen restrictions in the No Child Left Behind Act? ]]> </title>
       <link>http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/speakout/should-the-government-loosen-restrictions-in-the-no-child-left-behind-act</link>
       <description><![CDATA[ When President George W. Bush championed the No Child Left Behind law, he set high goals for America’s students. The intention was that you and your classmates would all be proficient at reading and math by 2014. We’re now within two years of that deadline, and not anywhere close to achieving that goal. Obstacles cropped up,  such as an achievement gap between minority students and their classmates. Teachers grew frustrated that the government expected them to make students perform better without providing the extra resources to make that happen. And the phrase “teaching to the test” began to spin around – the idea that teachers would be forced to instruct students only on content in the tests rather than overall concepts. This month, President Obama announced a change in law.  ]]> </description>
       <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:39:19 EST</pubDate>
       <dc:creator>John Vettese, Staff Writer</dc:creator>
       <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/speakout/should-the-government-loosen-restrictions-in-the-no-child-left-behind-act</guid>
   </item>
   <item>
       <title><![CDATA[ How should the federal government fund public transportation? ]]> </title>
       <link>http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/speakout/how-should-the-federal-government-fund-public-transportation</link>
       <description><![CDATA[ For many Americans, taking public transportation to and from work is a part of their daily routine. Buses, trolleys, trains and subways shuttle people from one place to another. While the routes may not be changing, legislation being debated in the House of Representatives could change the way the federal government funds public transportation. Called the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act, the legislation would take the existing funding source for public transportation – money raised through taxes on gasoline – and instead fund mass transit with a onetime $40 billion deposit into a public transportation fund. The revenue from the gasoline tax would instead be given to states to finance infrastructure projects like road construction and repairs. How should the federal government pay for public transportation and infrastructure improvements? Should tax money raised through gasoline taxes pay for public transportation or infrastructure? ]]> </description>
       <pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:33:36 EST</pubDate>
       <dc:creator>Jeremy Quattlebaum, Staff Writer</dc:creator>
       <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/speakout/how-should-the-federal-government-fund-public-transportation</guid>
   </item>
   <item>
       <title><![CDATA[ Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution: What’s next for California’s Prop. 8? ]]> </title>
       <link>http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/speakout/same-sex-marriage-and-the-constitution-whats-next-for-californias-prop-8</link>
       <description><![CDATA[ The ever-evolving debate over same-sex marriage in the United States once again took a major turn this week, with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruling that California’s gay marriage ban is unconstitutional. That ban – known as Proposition 8, and passed by a 52 percent majority of California voters in 2008 – was meant to reverse another court decision, one from the California Supreme Court earlier that year that declared that same-sex marriage was permitted under the state constitution. The back-and-forth will probably carry on from here, continuing a dispute that has been waged for more than a decade. ]]> </description>
       <pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:19:13 EST</pubDate>
       <dc:creator>John Vettese, Staff Writer</dc:creator>
       <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/speakout/same-sex-marriage-and-the-constitution-whats-next-for-californias-prop-8</guid>
   </item>
   <item>
       <title><![CDATA[ Does law enforcement need a warrant to track someone with a GPS device? ]]> </title>
       <link>http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/speakout/does-law-enforcement-need-a-warrant-to-track-someone-with-a-gps-device</link>
       <description><![CDATA[ If police use a GPS device to track someone, is that considered a search? That is the question the Supreme Court answered in late January, when it reviewed United States v. Jones. The court ruled unanimously that GPS tracking could be considered  a search, therefore police need to obtain a warrant first. Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s decision? How will this affect police and law enforcement efforts?  ]]> </description>
       <pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:24:25 EST</pubDate>
       <dc:creator>Ellen Iwamoto, Staff Writer</dc:creator>
       <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/speakout/does-law-enforcement-need-a-warrant-to-track-someone-with-a-gps-device</guid>
   </item>
   <item>
       <title><![CDATA[ Can schools refuse to publish a senior photograph for the yearbook? ]]> </title>
       <link>http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/speakout/can-schools-refuse-to-publish-a-senior-photograph-for-the-yearbook</link>
       <description><![CDATA[ The yearbook committee at Durango High School in Durango, Colo., is getting a lesson in the First Amendment. Seniors at the high school are allowed to submit their own senior photographs for the yearbook, and then a committee of five students reviews them. When aspiring model Sydney Spies submitted her photo, the yearbook committee rejected it, deeming it too racy for the yearbook. Spies submitted another photo, but it, too, was rejected, and instead of submitting yet another senior picture, she has decided to fight the decision. Should the school publish the photograph? Is a senior picture a form of expression? ]]> </description>
       <pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 10:53:49 EST</pubDate>
       <dc:creator>Jeremy Quattlebaum, Staff Writer</dc:creator>
       <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/speakout/can-schools-refuse-to-publish-a-senior-photograph-for-the-yearbook</guid>
   </item>
   <item>
       <title><![CDATA[ No dropouts till 18: Is Obama’s proposal a good one? ]]> </title>
       <link>http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/speakout/no-dropouts-till-18-is-obamas-proposal-a-good-one</link>
       <description><![CDATA[ Think about your classmates who have dropped out of school, or talked about dropping out. What do you think might happen if they couldn’t? President Obama thinks that it would force them to buckle down and achieve. In his State of the Union address last week, Obama proposed new dropout rules for schools in the United States. “When students don’t walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma,” he said. “When students are not allowed to drop out, they do better. So tonight, I am proposing that every state – every state – requires that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn 18.” ]]> </description>
       <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:57:27 EST</pubDate>
       <dc:creator>John Vettese, Staff Writer</dc:creator>
       <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/speakout/no-dropouts-till-18-is-obamas-proposal-a-good-one</guid>
   </item>
   <item>
       <title><![CDATA[ Should Kim Kardashian pay more taxes? ]]> </title>
       <link>http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/speakout/should-kim-kardashian-pay-more-taxes</link>
       <description><![CDATA[ “Being on TV changed my life,” quips Kim Kardashian on a YouTube video, “because I get lots of free stuff!” Kardashian’s claim starts off a video that campaigns to raise the tax rate for multimillionaires in California. Claiming that Kardashian made over $12 million in 2010 and paid only 1 percent more in taxes than the average Californian who makes $47,000 a year, the video makes the argument that millionaires should pay more taxes to pay for vital services like education and emergency responders. The tax, the makers of the video are arguing, could be a ballot initiative in California’s November election. But most millionaires and billionaires are against the idea. Should millionaires have to pay a higher percentage in taxes than middle-class taxpayers? Would the tax punish hardworking and successful people? ]]> </description>
       <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:16:07 EST</pubDate>
       <dc:creator>Jeremy Quattlebaum, Staff Writer</dc:creator>
       <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/speakout/should-kim-kardashian-pay-more-taxes</guid>
   </item>
   <item>
       <title><![CDATA[ Online piracy and Internet blackout: What exactly happened? ]]> </title>
       <link>http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/speakout/online-piracy-and-internet-blackout-what-exactly-happened</link>
       <description><![CDATA[ If you tried to look something up on Wikipedia last Wednesday, you probably noticed something – you couldn’t. The free online encyclopedia’s U.S. edition participated in a nationwide Internet blackout on Jan. 18 in protest of two bills that Congress was debating – the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House and the  Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) in the Senate. Visitors to the site could not search for information from its front page as they normally did; instead, they were greeted with a black page and appeals to call their elected officials. Other sites, like Google and Archive.org, also “went dark.” The blackout made enough of a statement that the two bills were withdrawn late last week, postponing a vote until there could be more debate and, in the words of Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, “wider agreement on a solution.” But what was the problem in the first place? ]]> </description>
       <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:00:00 EST</pubDate>
       <dc:creator>John Vettese, Staff Writer</dc:creator>
       <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/speakout/online-piracy-and-internet-blackout-what-exactly-happened</guid>
   </item>
   <item>
       <title><![CDATA[ Do corporations have First Amendment rights? ]]> </title>
       <link>http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/speakout/do-corporations-have-first-amendment-rights</link>
       <description><![CDATA[ With the Republican primaries under way, and national elections about to start heating up across the country, a new player is getting actively involved in elections: corporations. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a federal ban on spending by corporations and unions in federal elections was unconstitutional. It said corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals. The so-called super PACS, which are spending millions on ads in the primaries, are a direct result of the court ruling. 
Should corporations and unions be allowed to contribute unlimited amounts of money to influence elections? ]]> </description>
       <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:28:44 EST</pubDate>
       <dc:creator>Ellen Iwamoto, Staff Writer</dc:creator>
       <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/speakout/do-corporations-have-first-amendment-rights</guid>
   </item>
   <item>
       <title><![CDATA[ Should the government regulate radio and TV broadcasts? ]]> </title>
       <link>http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/speakout/should-the-government-regulate-radio-and-tv-broadcasts</link>
       <description><![CDATA[ The Federal Communications Commission in charge of monitoring the broadcast airwaves – for, among other things, use of vulgar language – decided to step up its regulation, supported by a law signed by President George W. Bush. Television and radio stations could be fined for each instance of language considered vulgar by the FCC, or every time a violent act was portrayed.  Broadcasters have been monitored by the government since the 1920s. In 1978, the Supreme Court in the landmark case FCC v. Pacifica Foundation upheld the FCC’s power to punish broadcasters that aired indecent material during prime time, when children were likely to be watching. But back then, broadcast media were people’s lifeline to the world around them – a small number of television networks and a small number of radio stations that the majority of Americans tuned in to for news and entertainment. The regulation was intended to protect children from content that might be suitable only for adults. Today, with hundreds of cable channels and millions of Internet sites, how much does broadcasting really matter? ]]> </description>
       <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:42:15 EST</pubDate>
       <dc:creator>John Vettese, Staff Writer</dc:creator>
       <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/speakout/should-the-government-regulate-radio-and-tv-broadcasts</guid>
   </item>

   </channel>
</rss>
