Admit it, you've been kept up nights worrying about your state's high school graduation rate.
I know I have... not.
Frankly, the only graduation rate I'm concerned about is that of my own kids. They'd better graduate (and in the case of the college student, thanks for getting ready to graduate early. You're a peach, Sweetie.)
Now the feds want to make the graduation rate standardized nationally.
I admit, as a statistic, it can be rather interesting for the sake of comparison. But admit it, unless you're a real stats geek, do you, as a consumer really care?
I mean, I like baseball a lot, but it has waaaaay too many stats. Some are useful. For example, it's handy for a pitcher to know what kind of pitches a certain hitter likes and does not like. That way, the pitcher can prepare to throw the ball a certain way and increase his chances of success. Good stat.
Bad stat? Home runs.
Home runs?
Yeah. The home run is what all the fans want to see, but as a statistic, it's almost useless. The pitcher wants to avoid giving up home runs, and to do so, he uses the more useful stats that tell him which pitches to avoid. But you can have a player who's known for hitting home runs, but maybe he does it more when the game is already well-in-hand. (Is a 10-3 loss any better than losing 10-1? No.) The fact he hits home runs does not tell you much. And sometimes a team can have one great home run hitter, but no one else can hit worth a lick and the team stinks.
Grad rates are like home runs. They are easy to understand, but tell you very little about what's really happening in education. Some states include people who get a General Ed Degree (which is often more difficult to do than attend high school), and some do not. Some allow for kids who take five years due to hardship or other factors, while other states ignore that.
So this stat is all over the map and doesn't give a real picture of how well a state teaches its kids.
So the feds can standardize it. It looks nice. But it means nothing.
After all, isn't the most important graduate the one in your family?
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
Baseball, hot dogs and apple pie should watch out
YOU'RE IT!
No, you're not. And neither is anyone else.
"Tag" has been tagged -- at least for a while.
In one Virginia school district, the educrats have deemed the purest sport imaginable off-limits.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/14/AR2008041402988_pf.html
It's too violent, don't ya know? Kids might get a boo-boo, a scrape, or get hurt feelings. Sure, nobody really wants those things, but a little adversity on the playground might just help you be better prepared for the adult games that are a little rougher than "tag."
You see, the little darlings in McLean, Virginia are getting a little roughed up playing tag. Small wonder. They probably spend most of their time cooped up playing on the Wii or surfing the net. (That is, of course, when they are done with their homework, natch.)
Is it any wonder they need to blow off some steam and have turned tag into a pre-pubescent rave?
The solution for this one is on the parents' shoulders. Tell the school board in McLean to allow tag once again. But, in return, parents forego the right to sue when their little precious gets a bloody elbow.
Hmmm. I guess "tag" is doomed after all.
No, you're not. And neither is anyone else.
"Tag" has been tagged -- at least for a while.
In one Virginia school district, the educrats have deemed the purest sport imaginable off-limits.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/14/AR2008041402988_pf.html
It's too violent, don't ya know? Kids might get a boo-boo, a scrape, or get hurt feelings. Sure, nobody really wants those things, but a little adversity on the playground might just help you be better prepared for the adult games that are a little rougher than "tag."
You see, the little darlings in McLean, Virginia are getting a little roughed up playing tag. Small wonder. They probably spend most of their time cooped up playing on the Wii or surfing the net. (That is, of course, when they are done with their homework, natch.)
Is it any wonder they need to blow off some steam and have turned tag into a pre-pubescent rave?
The solution for this one is on the parents' shoulders. Tell the school board in McLean to allow tag once again. But, in return, parents forego the right to sue when their little precious gets a bloody elbow.
Hmmm. I guess "tag" is doomed after all.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Life is soft... and so are we
There was a time, not so long ago, when the United States was at the top of the charts when it came to student performance on math and science.
There was a time...
But no more.
And it hasn't been that way for years.
We are headed for a crisis, folks, and we need to figure things out. Now.
The U.S. is ranked somewhere in the 20th spot or thereabouts in international science and math scores.
20th place.
If this was the Olympic Games, the good ol' U.S. of A. wouldn't get the gold, or the silver or bronze medals; maybe tin, pot metal, or appropriately, lead.
Who's on top?
Big surprise: China and India.
Times were, students from China and India would come to the U.S. to study at a university, and in many cases, stay here and become productive citizens.
But they are staying home now and making their own huge countries economic behemoths, at our expense, mind you.
A little competition is a good thing. I happen to think we can outdo any country when it comes to just about any academic subject. But we won't do it if we aren't motivated.
And we aren't motivated.
But the Asians are; especially in places like India and China, where, let's be realistsic, life is more difficult for the average Joe, or Hu, or Jawarhalal.
If you have brains but are stuck in a rural Chinese hut or a filthy suburb of Mumbai, math or science may be your ticket out. You can write code, develop software, work for a chemical lab, get into medicine. The options in India and China are exploding and the people are snapping up those options.
And why not? They're motivated. Who wants to do menial labor when you can make more money and get out of poverty? And the schools in India and China value those skills so much, they are pushing their kids to excel. In fact, society as a whole on most pan-Asian countries demands academic excellence. To not live to one's potential is to bring shame to yourself, your family, and your country.
Does that sound like America?
No. Americans obsess over Britney Spears' panties, Simon Cowell's scowl and how well George Clooney's latest flick did at the box office. We have forgotten the essentials and value the ephemeral and meaningless.
OK, so we can't fix all of society here, but what about the schools?
The biggest problem is a shortage of math and science teachers. If nobody wants to learn this stuff, even fewer want to teach it.
The best solution is to fast-track professionals who already know these skills and are willing to spend time either as adjunct or second-career teachers to fill these positions that are going begging.
Ask a retired Air Force Major if he or she would consider teaching 7th grade math. You'd be surprised how many would at least consider it. And people like that and from the corporate world who understand the real world needs for people with math and science skills would get the best out of those kids. Perhaps all they would need to be good teachers is some classroom management skills. And you DON'T need years of college to do that.
But, of course, the unions throw a conniption at the very thought. And the parents don't understand why Johnny can't add. And America slips further into mediocrity -- for purely avoidable reasons.
It's enough to make me want to learn Chinese.
There was a time...
But no more.
And it hasn't been that way for years.
We are headed for a crisis, folks, and we need to figure things out. Now.
The U.S. is ranked somewhere in the 20th spot or thereabouts in international science and math scores.
20th place.
If this was the Olympic Games, the good ol' U.S. of A. wouldn't get the gold, or the silver or bronze medals; maybe tin, pot metal, or appropriately, lead.
Who's on top?
Big surprise: China and India.
Times were, students from China and India would come to the U.S. to study at a university, and in many cases, stay here and become productive citizens.
But they are staying home now and making their own huge countries economic behemoths, at our expense, mind you.
A little competition is a good thing. I happen to think we can outdo any country when it comes to just about any academic subject. But we won't do it if we aren't motivated.
And we aren't motivated.
But the Asians are; especially in places like India and China, where, let's be realistsic, life is more difficult for the average Joe, or Hu, or Jawarhalal.
If you have brains but are stuck in a rural Chinese hut or a filthy suburb of Mumbai, math or science may be your ticket out. You can write code, develop software, work for a chemical lab, get into medicine. The options in India and China are exploding and the people are snapping up those options.
And why not? They're motivated. Who wants to do menial labor when you can make more money and get out of poverty? And the schools in India and China value those skills so much, they are pushing their kids to excel. In fact, society as a whole on most pan-Asian countries demands academic excellence. To not live to one's potential is to bring shame to yourself, your family, and your country.
Does that sound like America?
No. Americans obsess over Britney Spears' panties, Simon Cowell's scowl and how well George Clooney's latest flick did at the box office. We have forgotten the essentials and value the ephemeral and meaningless.
OK, so we can't fix all of society here, but what about the schools?
The biggest problem is a shortage of math and science teachers. If nobody wants to learn this stuff, even fewer want to teach it.
The best solution is to fast-track professionals who already know these skills and are willing to spend time either as adjunct or second-career teachers to fill these positions that are going begging.
Ask a retired Air Force Major if he or she would consider teaching 7th grade math. You'd be surprised how many would at least consider it. And people like that and from the corporate world who understand the real world needs for people with math and science skills would get the best out of those kids. Perhaps all they would need to be good teachers is some classroom management skills. And you DON'T need years of college to do that.
But, of course, the unions throw a conniption at the very thought. And the parents don't understand why Johnny can't add. And America slips further into mediocrity -- for purely avoidable reasons.
It's enough to make me want to learn Chinese.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
In Spanish, "mal" means "bad"
One of the biggest - if not the biggest - proponents of bi-lingual education is the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund: MALDEF.
In case you don't know, the theory behind bi-lingual education is that kids who do not know English will do better if they are taught in their native language and they will eventually pick up English along the way.
The only problem is that it usually takes about seven years for the kid to get proficient in English whereas if you put them in a classroom where nothing but English is spoken, they know the language much sooner - no more than three years -
and usually much less.
But I digress.
MALDEF also has some ideas about why minority kids drop out of high school. Actually, they have one idea: the lack of money. Never mind that in districts such as Detroit where the average spending per pupil exceeds a whopping $11,000 a year, the dropout rate is nearly three out of four students. Yeah, the money goes a long way in Detroit - like into Lake Huron.
So it was in that context that I had the chance recently to ask a MALDEF representative if the real answer for school success is actually having good leadership. I pointed out several instances in which high schools in low-socio-economic areas had excelling ratings.
They got the same amount of state funding as any other school, but their principals had another thing in common: they demand excellence from their students. They expect the kids to dress appropriately, come to class on time, do their home work and class work and be respectful of others. In other words, they expect their kids to act like reasonable members of society.
Even so, MALDEF's answer was: mo money, mo money, mo money.
Money can't buy good leadership. If it did, every multi-million dollar Wall St. CEO would be successful. But they're not.
The real world demands real leadership for real results.
MALDEF should get real or get another line of work.
In case you don't know, the theory behind bi-lingual education is that kids who do not know English will do better if they are taught in their native language and they will eventually pick up English along the way.
The only problem is that it usually takes about seven years for the kid to get proficient in English whereas if you put them in a classroom where nothing but English is spoken, they know the language much sooner - no more than three years -
and usually much less.
But I digress.
MALDEF also has some ideas about why minority kids drop out of high school. Actually, they have one idea: the lack of money. Never mind that in districts such as Detroit where the average spending per pupil exceeds a whopping $11,000 a year, the dropout rate is nearly three out of four students. Yeah, the money goes a long way in Detroit - like into Lake Huron.
So it was in that context that I had the chance recently to ask a MALDEF representative if the real answer for school success is actually having good leadership. I pointed out several instances in which high schools in low-socio-economic areas had excelling ratings.
They got the same amount of state funding as any other school, but their principals had another thing in common: they demand excellence from their students. They expect the kids to dress appropriately, come to class on time, do their home work and class work and be respectful of others. In other words, they expect their kids to act like reasonable members of society.
Even so, MALDEF's answer was: mo money, mo money, mo money.
Money can't buy good leadership. If it did, every multi-million dollar Wall St. CEO would be successful. But they're not.
The real world demands real leadership for real results.
MALDEF should get real or get another line of work.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Light blogging for a few days
Off to the land of Oz, otherwise known as our nation's capital, for a few days so blogging will be light for a little while.
But DC being DC, I bet I come back with some material.
But DC being DC, I bet I come back with some material.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Is it really worth it?
I've been asked to come up with a reasonable analogy about the federal government's role in education vs. what states are supposed to do.
See what you think:
Imagine a pyramid. The pyramid represents a state's budget for education - including federal dollars. The top 10 percent of the pyramid represents those federal funds. (Yup, about 90 percent of education spending in most states comes from state budgets, not the feds, which is the rest of the pyramid.)
Now imagine an upside-down pyramid. This one represents the ways in which states and the feds measure just how well students do on standardized tests. If the scores are not so good, states, and now the feds under No Child Left Behind, have ways to get the schools to shape up. A state may label a school as poorly performing or whatever, and the feds have a pass / fail system called Adequate Yearly Progress. That's assessment and enforcement.
Since some states have great enforcement and others are not-so-good, let's split the upside down pyramid 50 - 50 for the sake of argument. In this scenario, the state's part of the pyramid is on top. As you can imagine, an upside-down pyramid is pretty wobbly, but if it's balanced well enough, it might stand up for a while.
With the dollar pyramid, if you lop off the top 10 percent, the pyramid stands just fine. But with the enforcement pyramid, if you cut off the federal half at the bottom, that part of the pyramid falls down. The state part still has enough of a base to work perfectly.
The point?
The feds are responsible for a relatively tiny amount of education funding for any state. But since no state wants to lose even one dime of money, they will obey the dictates of the DC educrats. Think about it: Would you willingly take a 10 percent pay cut or put up with some extra hassle?
But even if a state did take the financial hit, how long would it be before a parent or group of parents in a school district that just lost several million dollars took someone to court? This is especially true because in education the vast majority of federal dollars go toward improving schools in low income areas.
Can anyone say "civil rights lawsuit?"
You don't want to go there.
So, for the foreseeable future, we have a federal education bureaucracy with a Napoleon complex: a little thing with too much power.
This proves the Ed Reformer dictum that giving authority to the federal government always results in the federal government claiming more power than its contribution deserves.
See what you think:
Imagine a pyramid. The pyramid represents a state's budget for education - including federal dollars. The top 10 percent of the pyramid represents those federal funds. (Yup, about 90 percent of education spending in most states comes from state budgets, not the feds, which is the rest of the pyramid.)
Now imagine an upside-down pyramid. This one represents the ways in which states and the feds measure just how well students do on standardized tests. If the scores are not so good, states, and now the feds under No Child Left Behind, have ways to get the schools to shape up. A state may label a school as poorly performing or whatever, and the feds have a pass / fail system called Adequate Yearly Progress. That's assessment and enforcement.
Since some states have great enforcement and others are not-so-good, let's split the upside down pyramid 50 - 50 for the sake of argument. In this scenario, the state's part of the pyramid is on top. As you can imagine, an upside-down pyramid is pretty wobbly, but if it's balanced well enough, it might stand up for a while.
With the dollar pyramid, if you lop off the top 10 percent, the pyramid stands just fine. But with the enforcement pyramid, if you cut off the federal half at the bottom, that part of the pyramid falls down. The state part still has enough of a base to work perfectly.
The point?
The feds are responsible for a relatively tiny amount of education funding for any state. But since no state wants to lose even one dime of money, they will obey the dictates of the DC educrats. Think about it: Would you willingly take a 10 percent pay cut or put up with some extra hassle?
But even if a state did take the financial hit, how long would it be before a parent or group of parents in a school district that just lost several million dollars took someone to court? This is especially true because in education the vast majority of federal dollars go toward improving schools in low income areas.
Can anyone say "civil rights lawsuit?"
You don't want to go there.
So, for the foreseeable future, we have a federal education bureaucracy with a Napoleon complex: a little thing with too much power.
This proves the Ed Reformer dictum that giving authority to the federal government always results in the federal government claiming more power than its contribution deserves.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
When in Rome...
If you've ever traveled throughout the world, you may have been cautioned about avoiding the "Ugly American" syndrome.
Remember the James Bond movie "The Man with the Golden Gun?" In case you don't, there is a character who typifies the classic Ugly American. He's a Louisiana Sheriff vacationing in Thailand. He's so uncouth he berates the locals for "wearing pajamas" and having "pointy heads." He's basically a harmless oaf who gets some minor comeuppance in the end.
But at least this guy's just visiting. I imagine his type would not want to live abroad, nor would his hosts be thrilled to have him.
The character in this movie is based on a factual stereotype. There really are people out there who think like him. They think that American culture exists wherever there are Americans. But that's not the case.
In some countries, shaking hands is offensive. In others, the old "shave and a haircut" knock on a door will get you a punch in the nose. It's the way life is.
So why is it that Americans have to kowtow (to use a word from another culture) to every culture of the world? I want to respect other cultures, but at least ours could get respect as well.
Perhaps one of the highest forms of respect for our culture is the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. It's a bond between all Americans -- even those who, for various reasons, decline to participate. Their decision and the reaction it usually gets demonstrates the power of the Pledge.
I'm not sure what to make of news that some schools (here's one: http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/232859.php) that encourage reciting the Pledge in multiple languages.
On one hand, it can be movingly patriotic to have someone from another country pledge allegiance to Old Glory using his or her native tongue. And I cannot be critical of saying it in sign language.
But there is one group of folks to whom I will generally defer in matters like this: veterans.
I'm not a veteran, but I have deep respect for any man or woman who has put on the uniform of this nation and risked life and limb so I could do things like freely write this little 'ol blog. And the veterans I have spoken to are not pleased that the Pledge would be said in anything but English. They have their reasons, most of which boil down to respect for the language of the Declaration of the Independence and the Constitution. If it's good enough for those...
I think of the flag being raised at Iwo Jima, or the Stars and Stripes that flew over Ft. McHenry and is on display at the Smithsonian; or the flag that was raised over the rubble of the World Trade Center on 9-11 and I think of the men and women who fought and died for what that flag represents. So many of them bled for the ideals embodied in that cloth and so many of them want to pay respect to that flag in the language of our Founders.
That's not too much to ask, is it?
Remember the James Bond movie "The Man with the Golden Gun?" In case you don't, there is a character who typifies the classic Ugly American. He's a Louisiana Sheriff vacationing in Thailand. He's so uncouth he berates the locals for "wearing pajamas" and having "pointy heads." He's basically a harmless oaf who gets some minor comeuppance in the end.
But at least this guy's just visiting. I imagine his type would not want to live abroad, nor would his hosts be thrilled to have him.
The character in this movie is based on a factual stereotype. There really are people out there who think like him. They think that American culture exists wherever there are Americans. But that's not the case.
In some countries, shaking hands is offensive. In others, the old "shave and a haircut" knock on a door will get you a punch in the nose. It's the way life is.
So why is it that Americans have to kowtow (to use a word from another culture) to every culture of the world? I want to respect other cultures, but at least ours could get respect as well.
Perhaps one of the highest forms of respect for our culture is the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. It's a bond between all Americans -- even those who, for various reasons, decline to participate. Their decision and the reaction it usually gets demonstrates the power of the Pledge.
I'm not sure what to make of news that some schools (here's one: http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/232859.php) that encourage reciting the Pledge in multiple languages.
On one hand, it can be movingly patriotic to have someone from another country pledge allegiance to Old Glory using his or her native tongue. And I cannot be critical of saying it in sign language.
But there is one group of folks to whom I will generally defer in matters like this: veterans.
I'm not a veteran, but I have deep respect for any man or woman who has put on the uniform of this nation and risked life and limb so I could do things like freely write this little 'ol blog. And the veterans I have spoken to are not pleased that the Pledge would be said in anything but English. They have their reasons, most of which boil down to respect for the language of the Declaration of the Independence and the Constitution. If it's good enough for those...
I think of the flag being raised at Iwo Jima, or the Stars and Stripes that flew over Ft. McHenry and is on display at the Smithsonian; or the flag that was raised over the rubble of the World Trade Center on 9-11 and I think of the men and women who fought and died for what that flag represents. So many of them bled for the ideals embodied in that cloth and so many of them want to pay respect to that flag in the language of our Founders.
That's not too much to ask, is it?
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Shut up and teach
Maybe that motto ought to be placed at the back of every high school classroom.
There is something about teaching high school and junior high that seems to bring out the activist in some teachers. There are few things more unprofessional than a teacher putting down the beliefs of his or her students, but that happens all-too-often.
I'm accustomed to hearing reports from kids who come home to talk about how a certain teacher complained that the jobs is so hard because pay is so bad. Yeah, teacher pay generally stinks . That's not news, and yes, it would be great if that would change. But if you got into the profession in the first place, you hopefully didn't do it for the dough.
In any case, you're paid to teach, not complain. My kid is supposed to come home a little smarter, not holding a piece of a teacher's bitterness.
And the bitterness gets spread around a whole lot more when you have teachers like this one:
http://www.ocregister.com/news/lawsuit-corbett-case-1996170-attorney-judge
James Corbett is going to trial because he has harshly criticized Christian students for holding to their beliefs. He has belittled those students by saying you can't think intelligently or critically when you have on your "Jesus glasses."
James Corbett will have his day in court. A fair trial will determine if he crossed the line. But what of the kids who have been attacked by an authority figure over whom they have little power? Finally, someone stood up to him.
Mr. Corbett, you are innocent until proven guilty. But no matter what, you can't think clearly when you have your "Bully glasses" on. And neither can your students.
There is something about teaching high school and junior high that seems to bring out the activist in some teachers. There are few things more unprofessional than a teacher putting down the beliefs of his or her students, but that happens all-too-often.
I'm accustomed to hearing reports from kids who come home to talk about how a certain teacher complained that the jobs is so hard because pay is so bad. Yeah, teacher pay generally stinks . That's not news, and yes, it would be great if that would change. But if you got into the profession in the first place, you hopefully didn't do it for the dough.
In any case, you're paid to teach, not complain. My kid is supposed to come home a little smarter, not holding a piece of a teacher's bitterness.
And the bitterness gets spread around a whole lot more when you have teachers like this one:
http://www.ocregister.com/news/lawsuit-corbett-case-1996170-attorney-judge
James Corbett is going to trial because he has harshly criticized Christian students for holding to their beliefs. He has belittled those students by saying you can't think intelligently or critically when you have on your "Jesus glasses."
James Corbett will have his day in court. A fair trial will determine if he crossed the line. But what of the kids who have been attacked by an authority figure over whom they have little power? Finally, someone stood up to him.
Mr. Corbett, you are innocent until proven guilty. But no matter what, you can't think clearly when you have your "Bully glasses" on. And neither can your students.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Maybe they should get Nike as a sponsor...
It may come to that.
Pay to Play may or may not be something your local schools are implementing. Maybe they've already done it. Or maybe they're just thinking about it.
But I predict it's coming on a more widespread basis. See here: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/112597
This is just like developer "impact fees." You know what those are, right? A developer builds news homes but the local government, busy giving cozy tax breaks to just about everyone but Joe Sixpack, demands that the developer build "improvements." You know, little things like roads, and sewer connections; things your tax dollars are already supposed to pay for.
So where are your taxing going? Who knows? They don't seem to be covering the basics anymore.
Schools have the same problem. Education funding has gone up more than 60 percent (for federal spending) since 2001. That money goes to local schools. So why do some districts need to charge you if your kid wants to play football, swim competitively, or join the dance squad?
I don't know, but if I were living in a school district where they chisled me for something that ought to be free, I'd want to know why. Ask your School Board. Demand to know.
Follow the money.
Pay to Play may or may not be something your local schools are implementing. Maybe they've already done it. Or maybe they're just thinking about it.
But I predict it's coming on a more widespread basis. See here: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/112597
This is just like developer "impact fees." You know what those are, right? A developer builds news homes but the local government, busy giving cozy tax breaks to just about everyone but Joe Sixpack, demands that the developer build "improvements." You know, little things like roads, and sewer connections; things your tax dollars are already supposed to pay for.
So where are your taxing going? Who knows? They don't seem to be covering the basics anymore.
Schools have the same problem. Education funding has gone up more than 60 percent (for federal spending) since 2001. That money goes to local schools. So why do some districts need to charge you if your kid wants to play football, swim competitively, or join the dance squad?
I don't know, but if I were living in a school district where they chisled me for something that ought to be free, I'd want to know why. Ask your School Board. Demand to know.
Follow the money.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
We're from the government and we're here to help you
Oh yes, there is a great deal of consternation about No Child Left Behind.
Many teachers hate it because it relies so much on test scores, and some teachers really don't want to be held accountable for students who may or may not really give a poot about learning.
Then again, some teachers just don't want to be held accountable. Some.
Administrators at the local and state levels hate the one-size-fits-all approach NCLB takes and they are flummoxed by how the feds define Highly Qualified Teachers. Every teacher is supposed to be "Highly Qualified," but even the educrats in D.C. aren't really sure what it means.
I know my dear departed Grandma who taught Kindergarten for 35 years, retired decades before Congress defined what a Highly Qualified Teacher is. But, I assure you, she was dang qualified and she didn't need an educrat to confirm that fact.
So why do we need NCLB? We don't, but states want the money. Well, most states want it...
Arizona, Minnesota and Virginia have talked about "opting out" of NCLB and forgoing the hundreds of millions of dollars each state gets from the federal government. Utah has its finger on that trigger all the time.
People are fed up.
But the irony is that for virtually every state, the funding they get from NCLB is a small fraction of the total education budget - maybe 10 percent, if that, in most cases. For that, the feds get to run the show? Seems a bit out of whack, but that's the gubmint for you.
Congress is looking at re-writing the law. They were supposed to have it done last year, but it won't happen until at least 2009.
There is a better option. Michigan congressman Pete Hoekstra has a bill called "A-Plus." It would get rid of virtually all the federal meddling and give the federal money - your money - back to the states to use for education. That's how it ought to be.
You may or may not want to read about the bill, but it's actually pretty simple; so here it is: http://hoekstra.house.gov/UploadedFiles/A-PLUS%20Summary%20(house%20bill).doc
Everyone has a congressman (or woman) and two senators. Give 'em a call or an email and tell them to support the House version of A-Plus. There's a Senate version, too, but Hoekstra's bill is less intrusive.
Don't know who serves you in Washington? Finding out is simple. For Congressmen go here: www.house.gov. For Senators, head here: www.senate.gov.
I'm not from the government, but I'll still try to help.
Many teachers hate it because it relies so much on test scores, and some teachers really don't want to be held accountable for students who may or may not really give a poot about learning.
Then again, some teachers just don't want to be held accountable. Some.
Administrators at the local and state levels hate the one-size-fits-all approach NCLB takes and they are flummoxed by how the feds define Highly Qualified Teachers. Every teacher is supposed to be "Highly Qualified," but even the educrats in D.C. aren't really sure what it means.
I know my dear departed Grandma who taught Kindergarten for 35 years, retired decades before Congress defined what a Highly Qualified Teacher is. But, I assure you, she was dang qualified and she didn't need an educrat to confirm that fact.
So why do we need NCLB? We don't, but states want the money. Well, most states want it...
Arizona, Minnesota and Virginia have talked about "opting out" of NCLB and forgoing the hundreds of millions of dollars each state gets from the federal government. Utah has its finger on that trigger all the time.
People are fed up.
But the irony is that for virtually every state, the funding they get from NCLB is a small fraction of the total education budget - maybe 10 percent, if that, in most cases. For that, the feds get to run the show? Seems a bit out of whack, but that's the gubmint for you.
Congress is looking at re-writing the law. They were supposed to have it done last year, but it won't happen until at least 2009.
There is a better option. Michigan congressman Pete Hoekstra has a bill called "A-Plus." It would get rid of virtually all the federal meddling and give the federal money - your money - back to the states to use for education. That's how it ought to be.
You may or may not want to read about the bill, but it's actually pretty simple; so here it is: http://hoekstra.house.gov/UploadedFiles/A-PLUS%20Summary%20(house%20bill).doc
Everyone has a congressman (or woman) and two senators. Give 'em a call or an email and tell them to support the House version of A-Plus. There's a Senate version, too, but Hoekstra's bill is less intrusive.
Don't know who serves you in Washington? Finding out is simple. For Congressmen go here: www.house.gov. For Senators, head here: www.senate.gov.
I'm not from the government, but I'll still try to help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)