On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:39:53 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:


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.

Did I say something about 'national curriculum standards'. There is always
the potential for the federal government to do as you say. You are simply
coming up with another excuse here. The establishment of minimal standards
for various subjects should not *have* to be a federal government job.
Sadly, too many states don't or didn't have standards.


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).


What if, what if, what if. "If" is for children building daydreams. What if
the federal government forced all 13 year-olds to join the Hitler Youth
Group?

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?


Another 'what if'. Even more liberal!

At the moment of conception a life is formed. Abortion then becomes the
taking of a life. In most civil areas of the world, taking a life is
considered wrong, although maybe not defined as 'sin'.

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..


Yes, some of those decisions should be made locally. You are confusing
standards and curriculum. Standards determine how well a student should
understand a given subject. Not all subjects are subject to meeting
'standards'. Photography, for example, is taught locally but not testable
by the state.

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.

If it's scary, don't vote for Hillary or Obama. They'll just get us one
step closer.
--
John H