Is The Education Prez Making The Grade?

[papau]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=66&ncid=749&e=11&u=/bw/20040816/bs_bw/c3897057mz013

Is The Education Prez Making The Grade?

Mon Aug 16, 8:10 AM ET


In 2000, as Texas Governor George W. Bush stumped for President, his emphasis on shaking up public education reinforced the message that he was a compassionate conservative who would reach out to America's underclass. As he decried the "soft bigotry of low expectations" that limited the horizons of inner-city children, Bush did more than appeal to moderate voters. Once in office, he pushed for passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in early 2002 -- an achievement that helped Republicans wipe out the Democrats' traditional advantage on support for schools.

But Bush's advocacy of education reform has proved to be a mixed blessing. Local school boards around the country -- joined by top Democrats such as John Kerry (news - web sites) -- are howling about the tough new law. NCLB requires schools to meet performance standards by 2012. But critics, including many local officials, contend the Administration hasn't provided the funding or the flexibility for school districts to clear the bar.


With his sights set on suburban moms, Kerry has devised an answer. He wants $27 billion to "fully fund" the law, promises more leeway for states, and backs some form of teacher performance standards. In effect, Kerry is striking a bargain with teachers: advocating both higher salaries and the performance ratings their unions abhor.


Republicans can dismiss Kerry's approach as disingenuous, but they have a harder time coping with the backlash among suburban moms who are furious that schools are becoming teach-to-the-test Stepford outfits. Juanita Doyon, a Spanaway (Wash.) mother of four who is running for state school superintendent as an independent, has staked her bid on eliminating her state's exam. "(The test) has destroyed teaching and academic freedom," she says. Besides the testing issue, many localities are raising property taxes to pay for what critics call the largest unfunded federal mandate of recent times. <snip>

[lunarboy13]

1. How can he be effective on education?

Putting aside his "No Child Left Behind" rhetoric that actually leaves behind every child, this President, by his own admission, DOES NOT READ!!!

Many adults in this country embarrassingly try to conceal the painful fact they are illiterate.

This president chooses it as a lifestyle.

[fdr_hst_fan]

2. NCLB was NOT SUPPOSED

to be an UNFUNDED Federal mandate; SMIRK MADE IT THAT WAY by not making the proper appropriations for it; but there's a reason for that-HE REALLY DOESN'T BELIEVE IN PUBLIC SCHOOLING! He WANTS the public school system to fail, so he can push private school tuition vouchers, so that rich people NOT ONLY get SMIRK'S tax cuts, but also have the poor middle-class pay for the snot-nosed rich kid's education in the bargain! So much for "compassionate conservatism"; it's real compassionate for the wealthy, but the middle-class can go to hell!

:mad: :puke:

[iconoclastic cat]

3. Yep.

I'd go one step further: eventually, these bastards would like eduaction to only be available to those who can afford it.

[noamnety]

4. Absolutely, NCLB is designed to kill public schooling.

1. It's not good enough for a class overall to meet minimum passing requirements. Each subcategory - based on race - needs to pass. Meaning if your school has only one student who is (white, black, pacific islander, asian, etc), and that one kid happens to fail, your school has a problem.

2. Continuous improvement standards means that if your school has a great year - all your kids score in the top 10% across the board, the next year you probably won't be able to top that, and so your school has a problem. You can't have infinite improvement in a test with finite maximum scores.

Local property tax issues can address some of the funding issues, but only for school districts in affluent areas that can afford a local tax. So we get the two Americas in public education.

The end result will be shifting tax funds from public schools in disadvantaged areas to private schools that teach religion. I don't want to have to chose between sending my child to an underfunded school and sending her to religious indoctrination. Neither choice is acceptable.