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

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).

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:03:45 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

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.

Which subjects, for which standards are mandated, are you thinking should
*not* be taught? Math? Science? History?


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

I agree, the FedGov should not have to be involved. If states had developed
their own standards and taught kids to meet them, then the involvement
wouldn't have been necessary.

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.

Not the FedGov's doing.

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.

That's your standard then? As long as they stay in the Ozarks, they
probably have enough to get by.

That is such a ridiculous statement that I won't even go any further with
you.


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).

--
John H