On Feb 11, 5:46�am, John H. wrote:
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.


Creating minimum federal standards for a variety of subjects at the
very least manadates that those subjects will be taught in the
classroom.

I'd be in favor of getting the FEDGOV completely out of the education
business. I can't think of anything in the Constitution that empowers
the FEDGOV to dictate to all the states regarding the content,
quality, or testing methods of state education systems. As it is now,
local taxpayers send hundreds of billions a year to Washington DC,
where
a huge portion is siphoned off to sustain a bloated bureaucracy before
a smaller portion of that money finds its way back to the local school
districts. Money sent to Wash DC doesn't mysteriously multiply, you
get back a lot less than you send. If getting the FEDGOV out of
education means that some state up in the Ozarks turns out kids with
less of an education than kids from California, New York, etc that's a
choice the parents and taxpayers made. As long as those students are
prepared to remain in the Ozarks, it's likely they would have enough
education to get by.

Not too mamy years ago, we were in a small town in Missouri. The town
was holding an annual celebration, and several grand antebellum homes
and mansions were open for public tours. In each of the homes,
a young woman of high school age was acting as "hostess"- dressed in a
costume consistent with high fashion in the 1860's or 1870's. We got
the impression that most of these girls were daughters of women who
belonged to the historical society, some of whom seem to very
sincerely hope that the "south will rise again". All of the young
women were white, most were blonde. Without knowing anything more
about the hostesses, I would not have been surprised to learn that
they enjoyed more than the average amount of whatevere privilege and
prosperity was available in that community.

Each of the girls read prepared remarks from note cards. Oh, my, gosh.
They typically stumbled over three-syllable words. Neither of my kids
would have been allowed out of 4th or 5th grade with similar reading
skills, yet these young women appeared to be of an age where they were
about to graduate from high school.

So, does the FEDGOV wade into this small town in Missouri and tell the
local people that they need to teach their kids to read at an adult
level before high school graduation----- (some justification for
that)------
or does the FEDGOV stick to the duties outlined in the Constitution
and
let the local school boards set standards for education and allow the
local taxpayers to fund it? (I'm more in favor of the second option).