“There are many factors, both intrinsic and extrinsic, that motivate learners and the factors can differ significantly from student to student. Nonetheless, we believe one overlying consideration is paramount: If the teacher is motivated and enthusiastic about what he/she is doing, then there is a greater probability students will be motivated as well. It seems like an obvious premise, but ask a student about the influence of a teacher who charges into the classroom excited about a lesson, creates relevant connections to their lives, presents challenges to be overcome, and makes it fun in the process.”

Most parents would be horrified of the thought where their child was being sent to a county jail but do not give a second thought about sending them to schools where environments are the same.

No wonder they don't want Burrus to run for re-election, Burris is a man for the people.

Right on Roland. Right On.

The mismanagement of school funds is something that needs to be addressed at the city, state and federal level, on that we agree. But we must do our part to make sure when children show up they are ready and willing to learn.

The nearly 2,000 dropout factories turn out 51 percent of the nation's dropouts. They produce 81 percent of all Native American dropouts, 73 percent of all African American dropouts, and 66 percent of all Hispanic dropouts. This is powerful information. By addressing the persistent failure of this relatively small number of high schools – by transforming the nation's dropout factories – we can fundamentally improve educational outcomes for America's students and better their impact on America's society.

Dropout factories

Get over yourself, brah.

The problem is that the parent-student responsibility should have never diminished. It is the responsibility of a parent to make sure their child knows the importance of school. I don't care if you are rich or poor, married or single or working 10 jobs, it does not take a lot of effort to tell your kid that school is important and let them know that they are expected to listen, behave and learn. I call bullshit on any excuse not to.

EMANUEL: Thanks, John.

KING: I want to begin overseas. There are reports that we are getting, hearing from U.S. officials, Western officials who have met with him and also on the ground, that President Karzai is resisting the findings that the fraud in the election was significant enough that there should be a runoff. In the view of the president of the United States, does President Karzai have a choice? Must there be a runoff?

EMANUEL: Well, first of all, what President Karzai must do and the process there is a credible and legitimate election or result, more importantly, for the Afghan people and for that government going forward, whether that's through a runoff, whether that's through negotiations. The process will be determined by the Afghan people. The result, for us and for the president, is whether, in fact, there's a credible government and a legitimate process; the Afghan people then think, this has worked, it's processed through. It's more important for the Afghans to come to that conclusion than what we say they have to do, because it's important for that government, whatever result or whatever process it takes, that the end result has a legitimate and credible government for the Afghan people.

KING: So at this point, since we do not view the prior election and the U.N. does not view the prior election as legitimate, is that then — is the choice then a runoff election or a negotiated power sharing agreement with Mr. Abdullah?

EMANUEL: John, you've seen in the papers, you see the reports that are coming from Kabul. There is basically two roads there, or two basically processes. One is another runoff election between the two top candidates, or a negotiation between those candidates. But the end result must be a legitimate and credible government to the Afghan people. That's what's important. It's the Afghans making a decision about what type of government they're going to have and what road they're going to take to that point.

KING: And this plays out as the president faces a decision of enormous gravity, whether to send thousands, tens of thousands of more U.S. troops. Will the president wait and delay that decision until after you have a clear picture of the political situation?

EMANUEL: The review's going to continue to go on. That's not in question. The question, and one of the central questions of that review — so we will continue. We've had five meetings. There's another set of meetings this week and the following week.

The question, though, and one of the questions is at the heart is — and even General McChrystal's own report says — the question does not come how many troops you send, but do you have a credible Afghan partner for this process that can provide the security and the type of services that the Afghan people need?

And you know, here in Washington, we want to have a debate, and you can't — we would love the luxury of this debate to be reduced down to just one question, additional troops, 40,000. This is a much more complex decision. Even the general's own report and General Petraeus' own analysis says the question, the real partner here is not how much troops you have, but whether in fact there's an Afghan partner. And when you go through all the analysis, it's clear that basically we had a war for eight years that was going on, that's adrift. That we're beginning at scratch, and just from the starting point, after eight years. And there's not a security force, an army, the type of services that are important for the Afghans to become a true partner. So that is the question. And what I think it would be irresponsible — and it's clear that as I saw the clip earlier, Senator Kerry said — Senator Kerry, who's now in Kabul in Afghanistan noted, that it would be reckless to make a decision on U.S. troop level if, in fact, you haven't done a thorough analysis of whether, in fact, there's an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that the U.S. troops would create and become a true partner in governing the Afghan country.

KING: Whether the president sends more troops or not, how are we going to pay for this? Even if he does nothing more, there will be 68,000 U.S. troops on the ground in Afghanistan at the end of the year, maybe a little more than that, without a decision to increase them. Will the president have to request emergency funding to pay for that, or is that (inaudible)?

EMANUEL: It will be part — I mean, if we did this, it would be part of what we have to do as we've done both for our Iraq and Afghanistan wars in the past. It would be part of that process.

KING: But the president said in April, he had hoped not to do that anymore. The president sent a letter to the House speaker, and he said, “this is the last planned war supplemental.” And he said, you know, in the past, after seven years of war, the American people deserve an honest accounting of the cost of our involvement in ongoing military operations. Is this something that candidates can say one thing or a young president can say another thing that you learn that sometimes you can't …

EMANUEL: No, I mean, one of the points is, is, what is the cost if we took this approach? And that's been part of the discussion.

The first part of this discussion, John, has been about the fact that, where are we, what is the context, what is the assumptions built into this? One of the things that has been analyzed in all this is that, you know, and people would like to reduce this down and would like the luxury that, you know, send more troops, as if that's all that it takes.

You have to have a policy. It's important — the policy is as important to protecting the troops as the equipment they have. And an analysis of where we are, what happened.

You have literally got into a situation, is there another way you can do this? And the president is asking the questions that have never been asked on the civilian side, the political side, the military side, and the strategic side. What is the impact on the region? What can the Afghan government do or not do? Where are we on the police training? Who would be better doing the police training? Could that be something the Europeans do? Should we take the military side? Those are the questions that have not been asked. And before you commit troops, which is — not irreversible, but puts you down a certain path — before you make that decision, there's a set of questions that have to have answers that have never been asked. And it's clear after eight years of war, that's basically starting from the beginning, and those questions never got asked. And what I find interesting and just intriguing from this debate in Washington, is that a lot of people who all of a sudden say, this is now the epicenter of the war on terror, you must do this now, immediately approve what the general said — where, before, it never even got on the radar screen for them. That — everything was always about Iraq.

This is where Al Qaida is based. Not just in Afghanistan, it's clear that they're based in Pakistan. What is the relationship between the Taliban? Are there different grades of a Taliban? That is what the analysis is going on in the situation room, and I think the comfort for the American people is the president will not be rushed to making a decision without asking firm questions and challenging the assumptions behind those questions.

KING: A quick break with the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. When we come back, we'll bring the debate home, domestic issue. Will health care reform pass this year, and what about the record federal budget deficit? Stay with us

My problem is this isn't the Chief of Staff's ballick. It doesn't matter that the reallity is we need a credible government that provides services to the people of Afghanistan in order to defeat the Taliban. You do not tie the President's decision on what to do going forward in Afghanistan based on the current government in public. The overall security situtation in the region is what determines the President decision.

Under the TARP legislation the Treasury Secreatary can do anything he wants to save the economy; if you doubt it tell me how GM and Chyrsler received over $50 billion to stay in business. Worse these companies were out of business including Goldman Sachs because if the Treasury and FED did nothing all the CDS they wrote, their mortgage bond holdings and bad loans was more capital than they had. If they had declared bankruptcy to stave of their creditors all the contracts they have would have been abrogated and there would be no bonuses period because the court would not let them.