On Feb 10, 6:24�pm, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:25:34 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing





wrote:
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:07:15 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Feb 10, 9:15?am, "Eisboch" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:06:06 -0800, Chuck Gould wrote:

Compare the average level of educational achievement on, say, the left
coast with the average education in customarily red states like
Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri. Then reevaluate. Thanks.

It's worse than that:

http://www.thebluestate.com/2005/10/...06_smarte.html

Note, the 21 states that spend the least on education, are all red.

I always get a kick out of the rationalization that education (or money
spent on it) ?automatically implies"smartness" in people.
There's a lot of stupid people with years of advanced degrees, just as there
are many "smart" people with limited education.

Eisboch

I agree with you entirely.

The basis for even considering education in the discussion was a claim
that D's oppose "No Child Left Behind", and thaty they do so because
if the amount of education were increased across the country the
number of people supporting the D's would decrease.

Talk to middle and high school teachers about NCLB and see what they
say about the system.

It's a total disaster. �And in states that require mainstreaming of
those children who are developmentally, physically, mentally or
emotionally "challenged", it's almost impossible to achieve the
standards required by NCLB.

How one thinks education is a state function is beyond me, other than for
the establishment of overall standards.

Using the challenged as an example of why NCLB doesn't work makes very
little sense. In states with a very strong teachers' union, NCLB doesn't
work. Why? Because the unions don't like their teachers having to meet
standards.

To say that standards shouldn't be used to judge the educational process
makes absolutely no sense. To say that children shouldn't be taught a
curriculum which enables them to meet the standards makes even less sense.
To say that children shouldn't be tested to ensure they meet the standards
makes the least sense of all.
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

One of the risks of rigidly enforced "national cirriculum standards"
is the potential for the federal government to manipulate too many of
the details of public education.

For example: What if, in order to qualify for federal aid, a school
district were *required* to teach the "theory of intelligent design"
enough hours to equal any time spent on the "theory of evolution"?
Once we are to that step, how remote would it be to have a very
progressive or very conservative government then dictate that the
theory of intelligent design
was to be the *only* theory discussed in the classroom- (or,
conversely, that it could not be mentioned at all).

Shall we teach as a matter of science, rather than faith, that the
human embryo has a soul at the moment of conception and that abortion
is therefore a "sin"? Shall we teach that responsible teenagers take
precautions to avoid STD's and pregnancy- or shall we teach that
responsible teenagers just say "no" to sex, drugs, and alcohol?

Point is, that some of these decisions should be made at the local
level and reflect the values of the communities in which the schools
are located. If some district in the Bible Belt wants to concentrate
on Intelligent Design as the best available theory explaining the
origin and modification of species, then that district should be
accountable first to the local taxpayers supporting the school rather
than first accountable to a national standard that (might possibly)
mandate Evolution as the preferred explanation..

If some Nazi-like group somehow ascended to federal power 100 years
from now, of what would the "official national cirriculum" be likely
to consist? Scary to contemplate.