posted on April 11, 2001 06:12:10 AM
Quote from Ellen Goodman's latest column:
Maybe I was put off by his most famous tip for teachers: "You teach a child to read and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test."
[ edited by roadsmith on Apr 11, 2001 06:13 AM ]
posted on April 11, 2001 06:38:28 AM
While I do believe that there have to be national standards for acheivement, there needs to be funding as well. Funny how he cut money from Education and now the US Navy is getting another submartine that it says that it neither wants nor needs. Of course, the new Secretary of the Navy also works for General Dynamics -- who happens to make the Navy's submarines. I guess if kids were corporations, we'd have the best funded schools in the universe.
posted on April 11, 2001 06:38:45 AM
I think he is 100% in tune with the current thought in education.
Education is for the purpose of preparing you for tests that will decide your worth to society and how high on the list you are for goodies.
Fortunatly for those who are not good at memorization your families money and your own personal suction still remain a factor to keep this from becoming the only factor for success which would certainly be a perversion of values.
Edited to add : If something can't be tested by multiple choice can you prove it exists?
[ edited by gravid on Apr 11, 2001 06:41 AM ]
posted on April 11, 2001 08:37:59 AM
Morning Borillar - Would you please tell me where you read/heard the statement you made = Funny how he (Bush) cut money from Education please?
From everything I've read he increased the budget for education by 11.5%.
"The two sides agreed on some of the top goals of Bush's education agenda, including testing, more school accountability and block grants for schools to upgrade their teaching levels. ... Democratic priorities, including funds to reduce class size and repair crumbling schools, also will be left for later debate."
With the One Hand, He Giveth, and the other, Palmth the Goodies.
Like I said: National testing, money to pay for Private Schooling, but to repair crumbling schools? Neither did he provide anything to make classroom sizes smaller, and so forth - real change!
edited for syntax
[ edited by Borillar on Apr 11, 2001 08:50 AM ]
posted on April 11, 2001 10:18:09 AM
From the same article:
"The president has promised to boost spending on education and has proposed a $44.5 billion budget for the Education Department, an 11.5 percent increase over the original budget proposal for this year."
So an increase of 11.5% is cutting the budget? Or is it only cutting if that % is less than the other side wants?
I guess it's best if you define "cutting" beforehand eh?
Like I said: National testing, money to pay for Private Schooling, but to repair crumbling schools? Neither did he provide anything to make classroom sizes smaller, and so forth - real change!
But right above that a quote from the very article you linked
"The two sides agreed on some of the top goals of Bush's education agenda, including testing, more school accountability and block grants for schools to upgrade their teaching levels. ... Democratic priorities, including funds to reduce class size and repair crumbling schools,also will be left for later debate."
Which I take it to mean, they are not done yet on this issue of smaller class sizes, and crumbling schools.
The article said the committee would take this all up after Easter recess.
So its not over yet
It also said that the Federal Gov't will pay for the National testing.
posted on April 11, 2001 11:12:55 AM
So, there was no 'cut' by Bush for education. On your point of what the Democrats want and didn't get in this recent Education increase, was smaller classrooms and crumbling school funds? Well, please don't forget that our property tax dollars, paid to our states, also fund the schools, not just Federal funds alone.
it sounds to me like President Bush wants to make the schools more accountable for the Federal funds they receive.
(quote) In particular, No Child Left Behind outlines a comprehensive approach to accountability involving annual testing in reading and math of all students in grades 3-8, regular reporting of test results to parents and the public, extra help for low-performing schools, and greater choices for students in chronically failing schools. States are free to develop their own systems of accountability based on their own standards and assessments. Once those systems are in place, however, States will be rewarded for improving student performance and closing achievement gaps or risk losing a portion of Federal administrative funds if they fail to make sufficient progress.(end quote)
(bolding is mine)
posted on April 11, 2001 11:33:25 AM
Linda_K is providing some very valid information.
I can tell you from personal experience, many schools are defrauding the US government for federal funds at the expense of children and parents.
There are many children being put in special ed classes under the false pretense that the children have certain learning disabilities when, in fact, they do not. The amount of annual federal funding the schools receive is based on the number of students enrolled in the programs the previous year. More students = more money.
The US government knew about this scam during the Clinton regime but did nothing. This administration will.
posted on April 11, 2001 12:03:24 PM
The problem arrises when you simply read the headlines, but don't look into the details. While Bush RASIES the spending on education, you have to read the details to see what it is that it is being spent on. Certainly, the money is there to send kids to private schools where they can be prostelytized, but for smaller classroom sizes? Fix those leaky roofs? Nope!
The debate is over in the Senate and the Republicans didn't budge.
As far as making Management and Administration accountable for funds spent, I'm all for it. I'm for a national standard for education. I'm for teachers being paid what they're worth. Fact: if you want good teaching, you have to pay for the good teachers (something that cheapskate Oregon has discovered to their long-term detriment).
But didn't Bush say that he wanted the federal funds to go to the schools, but to allow the states to dispense that money without federal oversight? Don't tell me that I heard that wrong -- the Republican politicians having been screaming for that one since 1990 or earlier!
posted on April 11, 2001 12:16:08 PM
Outsider, yep! from personal expereince here, when my 2 were in high school.
Their high school IMO is the worst in the district, but that is where they were supposed to go.
It was more interested in getting the best football players, and better gyms and fields than classroom improvements.
Children (and teachers) should be accountable for the progress they make or don't make. The school receives so much money for each child that is enrolled.
My oldest, when in elementary school, was placed in special ed. We went and had meetings with the teacher and school psychologist, who insisted that she had learning disability. At that time, she was very shy, and didn't want to read aloud, or speak up in class.
She, of course HATED special ed, so we took her and had her tested ourselves. She
was found to be reading at the 7 th grade level, and she was in the 5th grade at the time, she was doing very well in all subjects. Taking this all back to the school, we had to literally fight to get her out of special ed. Eventually she was, and the next year, and from then on, she was on honor roll. (and presently in Veternary Medical School )
The point is, yes, they receive more funds for special education, and YES some children need it, but in our case, my daughter definitly did not. I believe there are more like mine that are in some program unnecessarily, and the school is receiving more funds for this.
posted on April 11, 2001 12:21:51 PM
Outsider2 - Thank you.
You said, There are many children being put in special ed classes under false pretense that the children have certain learning disabilities when, in fact, they do not I agree, the schools receive more funding for these 'special ed' classes than do the 'regular' classes, and some parents also benefit from their children being so clasified. (Please note one NY City School Teachers reasons for this below.)
From what I've read, President Bush is going to make schools *show* improvement in the schools before rewarding them by throwing more federal funds their way. (Make them accountable.)
In 1996 the Federal school funds were $23 Billion. In 2001 they were $42.1 Billion. That's just about double, and what improvement has there been? Not much IMO. Accountability will make a difference.
posted on April 11, 2001 12:34:04 PM
Borillar - The way I see it is that President Bush is trying to elimiate waste, duplication, etc. and use those funds for the improvements you and others are seeking. I don't disagree that they're needed. Just throwing more money at the school system hasn't improved anything, so why continue it.
When you have a chance, read this 5 page article (From the NY Times - 'cause I know you won't believe things printed from more conservative slanting news)
It's a very interesting read, written by a teacher who kept a journal about her teaching experiences in a NY City School.
On the issue of special education. (quote) And some low-income parents encourage bad behavior so their children are labeled disabled and placed in a special education class. They can then receive Supplemental Security Income. (end quote)
On the issue of waste
....NY School systems - and classrooms - are riddled with such processes: redundant, complex, ineffective. Many propose reform. President Bush has focused the national spotlight on low-performing schools like those in the chancellor's district, calling for more assessment tests and vouchers and tax credits for parents.
State courts, most recently in New York, have ordered new thinking on redistributing aid to urban schools.
New York City's mayor wants to eliminate the Board of Education.
The board frequently changes chancellors. The chancellors criticize the superintendents, who criticize the district officials. They turn their wrath on the principals. Teachers are on the lowest rung of the ladder and are criticized by all.
posted on April 11, 2001 03:59:45 PMLinda_K: I don't post Leftist media articles here for the same reason. I will read your 5-pager here in a bit. I just wanted to say that if Bush can make poor performing schools improve, say the ones that have rain pouring in on them and students have to wear rain coats while they learn, then I'll really be impressed! Personally, I'd rather see schools repaired first so that students can have a clean, dry, warm place to learn.
I'm also suspicious of Bush on this. He has been funneling so much of our surplus into the pockets of corporations and protecting them, all the legislation that he has passed or recinded has made corporations richer, I can't see why profiteers that benefit from school contracts won't get just as fat and rich. We've heard promises from Republican presidents before and they never fail to look after the Rich and the Powerful over the 99% of the rest of the nation.
>"On the issue of special education. (quote) And some low-income parents encourage bad behavior so their children are labeled disabled and placed in a special education class. They can then receive Supplemental Security Income. (end quote)"
Sadly, I have known a mother to do this to her two children for just the reasons that you quote above. She had her kids acting so retardly, that the schools were at a loss to help them. I eventually blew the whistle on her, but then she ran away to Mississippi where she set up camp there. Her kids? Wonderful future ahead of them! But Linda_K, these are the exceptions to the rule, not the rule itself. Will you condemn the 10,000 needy famlies with real problems to no help because the 1 in 10,000 abuses the system?
posted on April 11, 2001 05:01:49 PM
Borillar - It is my belief that you and I want the same thing. Better schools, better education, and a safe enviroment in which children can learn.
That being said, the way to go about that is where the debates come into play. I was looking at a site (I believe it was on the Department of Education site) where it showed the huge increases in federal funds that have been doing nothing but increasing over the years. (Note it doubled just since 1996.) If things were getting better, ie test scores, etc. then that would be great. BUT our schools are not getting better, the students are not learning what they should be (some in the middle schools can't even read), and the condition of their learning facilities and availiblity of books and supplies needed for school work, have not improved.
Part of this problem to me is that many inner city school teachers don't even have degrees to teach. Some aren't certified. Some probably couldn't pass the academic tests themselves. Read today that schools are starting to set a higher requirement for those who teach students. I believe this change is coming about because administrators know that, under President Bush's educational program, they are going to *have* to show improvement in test scores...or else. So again, why pour more money rather than fix some of these problems?
[i]Will you condemn the 10,000 needy families with real problems to no help because the 1 in 10,000 abuses the system[i]? I don't agree with the numbers you present here, sorry. Abuse is very high.
So, I'm open to Bush's making the schools accountable. We can't keep increasing the taxes middle class Americans pay when the expenditures is not getting the desired results. And to me, that's what would happen in regards to using the surplus to pour more money into a system that isn't working/improving. IMO, it's time to try something different.
posted on April 11, 2001 07:04:20 PM
A refreshing bit of sarcastic humor on this
topic from Letters to Dubya from Nancy.
"Remember your campaign slogan "leave no child behind"? You really did not forget the kids. Now, you are planning to cut the grants for day care with $200 million (10% down from the year 2000 appropriation). You also want to slash the programs that deal with child neglect and child abuse with $15.7 million (or 18% down from the year 2000). Those programs now take care of some 900,000 children. Last but not least you are going to eliminate the $20 million for that "early learning fund" from the Clinton era. After all, who cares about child education?? The Director of The White House Office of Management and Budget, Mitchel E. Daniels Jr., has to find the money for our Tax Cut somewhere, right?? Tough luck, kids, wait until the President is done with his Tax Cut!!!"
posted on April 11, 2001 10:00:32 PM
Hi, guys: When I started this thread, I was just intending for people to note that the "education president" has poor grammar. What sort of Harvard-educated person says "he or her"? It seemed ironic.
However, I've certainly enjoyed your comments, pro and con Dubya. We have a man at the helm who appears to be brain-damaged. Dyslexia alone cannot explain his halting speech. Alcohol abuse (even if in the past) can.
posted on April 11, 2001 10:25:28 PM
Hi, roadsmith! I think that it is important to distinguish that Bush has a degree from Harvard from the notion that he is Harvard educated. He's about Forrest Gump level, and I'll bet you anyhting that the personn who went to Harvard and got a degree by the name of George W. Bush wasn't the same person as this president. If someone offered you a free Harvard education in whatever subject you'd like, only you had to pretend to be someone else . . .
Thank you, Helen, fopr that bit of research. it was my point entirely: that to fund Bush's notions (conservative republican politicians) of how to "improve" the schools through testing, they trimmed many other programs. Head Start has always been a hard target for Republican politicians slashing. And I think Lnda_K has a great faith in Bush -- something I lack, but we do agree that there does need to be accountability. But FIRST, you've got to have a clean, dry, warm, SAFE surroundings in a small classroom, taught by real teachers (who want to be paid real money, for some reason), and do it on a full belly! THEN, and only then can you accurately measure progress! Simply holding up standards that can't be met because the basics are all slashed out of the funding, well, you know where this arguement goes.
Yes, Linda_K, we do agree on the basics. But honestly, any political party that keeps trying to undo Head Start Programs and Free Breakfasts for impovershed kids -- like the Republicans keep doing, while sending Billions $$ of dollars to their Ultra-Rich patrons is only going to be up to no good! I don't care how he says it -- he's a liar and has already been proven to go back n his word and to lie about things to the American people. Why not lie and cheat on this one? A conscience? Since when?
