RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions
No Child Left Behind, or how to dismantle public education..(18 posts)
|No Child Left Behind, or how to dismantle public education..||PdxMark|
Aug 11, 2003 10:47 PM
|GWB's No Child Left Behind law, like virtually everything he does, is couched in language that evokes a laudable goal, but actually has a malevolent and sinister hidden purpose.
Without addressing major issues relating to the lack of success many children have in schools, namely lack of parental support of education, and certainly without providing the resources to compensate for these shortcomings, the No Children Left Behind Act is intended to do nothing but dismantle public education (and, coincidentally, teacher unions). In general, the combination of draining "underachieving schools" of their students (and hence ther funding), while over-crowding "successful schools" to drive the middle class into private education, GWB and the GOP can segregate public education and undercut public support for funding it. The teachers unions will crumble, and faith-based schools can rise to fill the vacuum.
To ensure that this works, GWB establishes standards to guarantee the most schools will fail to meet standards. Take my kids' school. One of the best grade schools in the city, if not the state, it will be held to be failing under GWB's idiotic law. You see, failure to meet any standard means that the school is failing at large.
In my kids' school, the failing standard was Participation of Disabled students in the Testing. The standared is 95% participation, but parents can opt their kids out of the testing. Of the 48 kids with disabilities, only 45 took the test. 94%. So the school is failing. (The achievement requirement in math, for example, is that 39% with disabilities satisfy standards. 72% of these kids at the school meet standards. So the scholl actually seems to be teaching something.)
So, GWB is brilliant. He tells people exactly what they want to hear, "take Care of Kids," creates a framework that does nothing to bring about that result, and on the basis of that Bare-Faced Lie, slinks in an entirely different consequence.
Why Lie about sex when you can Lie about facts, policies and program objectives.
|See tj's post, incorporated herein by reference ;-) nm||DougSloan|
Aug 12, 2003 5:51 AM
|Does it ever occur...||94Nole|
Aug 12, 2003 5:53 AM
|that a piece of legislation is drafted and tweeked to the point that there are less desirable elements found within? If 46 of the 48 had taken the test, you likely (totally my assumption) would never have known or cared about what was in the legislation.
This happens all the time and why don't people beat and bang on the drafters and supporters in the congress who put the bill on his desk for signature. It is obvious that the majority of the 535 men and women in the Congress voted approval of this law.
Do the engineers and managers of a company that have responsibility for the details of a design or the Chariman of the Board?
I know ultimately if an organization is not meeting the goals set out that the top brass takes the hit, but come on, look to the drafters of this piece of legislation and beat on them too. I am so sick of people beating on the President as the one who made this or that happen or not happen.
And there would be much worst things in this world than the crumbling of the teachers' unions. How many billions have we spent on US public education only to have the problems we have today? Primary reason - involved parents or lack thereof. Secondary reason - teachers' unions - aka large interest group with greater concerns than the education of US children.
|Does it ever occur...||bboc|
Aug 12, 2003 7:36 AM
The Bush administration intoduces the legislation (I could be wrong on that fact). Bush supports and helps push the legislation through a Republican controlled Congress. Bush signs the legislation. Bush doesn't fund anything. No Nole, Bush had nothing to do with it. How could anyone dare to hold him accountable.
|You are wrong on that fact,||TJeanloz|
Aug 12, 2003 8:35 AM
|The President cannot introduce legislation. That power falls solely on the Congress, and, if it involves taxation, the House of Representatives. Democrats are also not powerless in the Congress - they controlled the Senate for a significant part of Bush's term.|
|It doesn't change the fact that||bboc|
Aug 12, 2003 8:42 AM
|his fingerprints are all over it. Is Bush responsable for anything?|
Aug 12, 2003 8:45 AM
|The checks and balances of the American political system basically ensure that one man cannot be entirely responsible for anything. For anything to happen, all three branches of government need to sign off on it. Is he partly responsible for everything? Yes. Solely responsible? No.|
|Please tell me from my post, where I said...||94Nole|
Aug 12, 2003 9:00 AM
|that the President had nothing to do with it. If you want to be mad about something, be mad at your neighbors for putting all of the Republicans and Democrats and others into office that voted FOR this bill and put it on the President's desk.
The President certainly supported the legislation but he didn't hammer out its details in the halls of Congress.
I'll bet, unless you didn't pay any income tax last year, and without looking, you couldn't tell me how much income tax you paid last year according to your return filed with the IRS. Most people can generally tell you how much their refund was but don't have a darn clue how much they actually paid after all was said and done. What does this have to do with anything, you ask? It goes to show that those with ultimate responsibility for this or that rarely know ALL of the details that matter the most. But I'll bet you feel you should pay less taxes, right? Well, how on earth would you know if you paid fewer taxes, when you don't know how much you paid in the first place? But the argument sounds darn good and will get lots of support, doesn't it?
|Please tell me from my post, where I said...||bboc|
Aug 12, 2003 10:37 AM
|"I'll bet, unless you didn't pay any income tax last year, and without looking, you couldn't tell me how much income tax you paid last year according to your return filed with the IRS. Most people can generally tell you how much their refund was but don't have a darn clue how much they actually paid after all was said and done. What does this have to do with anything, you ask? It goes to show that those with ultimate responsibility for this or that rarely know ALL of the details that matter the most. But I'll bet you feel you should pay less taxes, right? Well, how on earth would you know if you paid fewer taxes, when you don't know how much you paid in the first place? But the argument sounds darn good and will get lots of support, doesn't it?"
I have no idea what your point is. It sounds as concise, well thought out, and relevant as a Bushism.
|My point is, BBOC...oh, excuse me, bboc,...||94Nole|
Aug 12, 2003 10:53 AM
|is that if you expect the President (not just Bush, but every President) to know all the details of every bill that comes down the pipe to his desk when...oh nevermind. What difference does it make?
Bush is just wrong. He's the appointed President who stole the White House. The first President who makes decisions based on what others advise him to do without himself, knowing all the finer points. I mean he is the entire exec, legislative and judicial branches all rolled in to one, right? Those that don't agree hate him and always will. I guess those of us who don't hate him will just have to get used to it.
Don't you wish we had Algore in there?
|BBOC, bboc, or Bill are all acceptable||bboc|
Aug 12, 2003 11:16 AM
|I guess that since I don't blindly support GWB I am a mindless Bush Hater.
I think the policies, and ideals put forth by GWB and his administration are sending this country into a downward spiral of imperialism, lies, secrecy, enviromental destruction, fiscal irresponsiblilty, Big Brother government intrusiveness, corporate crime/handouts/favoritism, and expansion of the wealth gap (just to name a few).
Al Gore certainly could not have been as bad. I don't feel that GWB is completely illegitimate as the winner of the 200 elections, but he acts like he was given some kind of mandate in a lanslide victory even though he lost the popular vote. More than half of the voters felt that Al Gore would have been better, as do I.
I have many, many, many reasons not to like Bush.
|GWB's administration drafted it... but GWB isn't responsible?||PdxMark|
Aug 12, 2003 8:44 AM
|Three days after taking office in January 2001 as the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush announced No Child Left Behind, his framework for bipartisan education reform that he described as "the cornerstone of my Administration."
"These reforms express my deep belief in our public schools and their mission to build the mind and character of every child, from every background, in every part of America."
President George W. Bush
So, the President shouldn't take responsibility for his own legislation. Is there anything he should take responsibility for? Falsehoods in his State of the Union? Naw. A Republican Congress passed legisislation GWB submitted, so I suppose that makes the dopey legislation Clinton's fault?
I had actually drafted a post like this a week ago based on general effects of GWB's dopey Act, but I bit my tongue at that time. The ludicrous application of the Act to my kids' school pushed me over the edge.
My point is that GWB's legislation does NOTHING to help students while mainly working to dismantle public education, one school at a time. All under false pretenses. But false pretenses is just what 43 stands for.
|And I would say that anything that would dismantle the beast...||94Nole|
Aug 12, 2003 9:06 AM
|of public education in its current form would be darn good for the future of our kids and their educations. Are you in favor of or against vouchers that would allow those who may not otherwise be able to afford private schools to attend there?
I would much rather see schools go private (and I have two kids in public schools) in an effort to again EDUCATE our children and get rid of the government sponsored indoctrination program that we are currently funding.
|"Again EDUCATE our children..."?||PdxMark|
Aug 12, 2003 1:27 PM
|What education plan are you talking about reverting back to? The pedagogically limited and widely discredited 3Rs? What else? What indoctrination are you talking about? Would that be the idea that racism isn't acceptable or the Cristianity ISN'T written into our Constitution? Sheesh...
Have you stepped into one of your kids classrooms? I have mine... They are learning a wider range of topics, and a deeper set of skills, than we ever did... back in the pre-Prop 13 heyday of California public education.
And yes, I oppose vouchers, just like I oppose tax breaks for K-12 private education. The point of a public education system is to provide the foundation of an (albeit minimally) educated population that is equipped to participate in democratic processes and the economy. It benefits all society. Vouchers undermine that process in part by leaving behind in the (formerly) public schools only the kids that are not wanted in private ones. Let's use vouchers so everyone can choose the security service they want (rather than rely on police).
Feeling the way you do, you are quite the careless parent to leave your kids in public schools. And in GWB's Amerika, if you can't afford to put them in private school, you're a loser to boot.
|What the heck does racism have to do with anything?||94Nole|
Aug 12, 2003 4:30 PM
|I thought we talking about educating our children?
Yes, I am fortunate to live in an area were parents, including the parents of my children, are very involved with the education of their children. Your child(ren) is(are) very fortunate if you are involved. This is the root of many problems in the "problem" schools. Why should these students not be given the opportunity to get out of those hell holes even if it does take a voucher?
It is obvious that the problem schools aren't working. What would you suggest? Perpetuating the problem isn't working, face it.
You say "The point of a public education system is to provide the foundation of an (albeit minimally) educated population that is equipped to participate in democratic processes and the economy." You think our schools are doing this now when we read on a daily basis questions asked of high school seniors regarding, for example, simple geography? Kids who have no idea who holds the offices of the President, VP, governor of their respective states, etc. I guess we need to raise taxes and throw some more money at it, right? But these same kids call tell you every darn PS2 game that has been released over the past 2 years. Oh and put me on the list of bad parents, my boys 10 and 14 have never had a video game console and never will.
"Vouchers undermine that process in part by leaving behind in the (formerly) public schools only the kids that are not wanted in private ones." So, let's hold down the whole darn lot of them? What about those kids (and their parents) who can transfer to better schools, public or private? So, we should hold those back for the good the whole?
The problem I have is that there is too much drugging of kids these days and less challenging those that need to be challenged. There are so many kids today on drugs, prescribed by the doctors. I am sick of this system. It is broken. Doing the same things bring about the same results.
No, we could never go back to just the 3Rs, but we need to do something. There are also major problems that are not within the walls of school. But the way society is headed, the direction of which I assume that you support, there is no relief in sight. No wonder homeschooling continues to grow in popularity. I guess we should put an end to that too because of the kids who are not able to attend a home school.
And still don't know why you brought up racism
|re: No Child Left Behind, or how to dismantle public education..||Duane Gran|
Aug 12, 2003 5:59 AM
|Although I applaud the notion of setting of high standards, I don't think standardized testing is the best yard stick to measure progress. Personally, I don't have much confidence in the public school system. My fiance and I are already making plans for private education (figuring roughly 3 years before having children) because we regard it as the most effective investment. Unfortunately, we will still be taxed for public schools.|
|public education isn't a fee for services program||PdxMark|
Aug 12, 2003 1:38 PM
|The taxes you pay, and that everyone else pays, provide an educated populace that maintains the society (economically and democratically) that benefits all of us. The alternative to widespread public eductaion is 2d- or 3d-world levels of illiteracy that would drag our economy to its knees in a generation. We have one of the most productive work forces in the world. Public education is the basis of that productivity.
Congrats on your engagement & I hope your eventual kids have a great time in private school. But the taxes you pay wouldn't be just for your kids. Those taxes are for all the kids and society at large.
|good points||Duane Gran|
Aug 13, 2003 6:33 AM
|You bring up some good points about the social benefits of public education, and I can't deny what you say. However I can't look past the fact that the public school system in the United States pales in comparison to the other industrialized nations. I've seen examinations of the cost per student for public and private education and it is actually more affordable for private education. To me it says that we, as tax payers, are getting a bad return on investment for public education. I personally would welcome an option for parents to invest their tax dollars into the school of their choice.|| |