As a public school teacher, don't even get me STARTED on the myriad ways that state and federal government steps into the schools and screws them up. No Child Left Behind is the biggest load of horse cr@p ever--all paperwork and tracking of (but not educating) the lowest of the low-performing students. It takes too much time away from our average to above average students.
It's just another do-nothing program......accountability? Accountability for what? At throwing tax dollars down the toilet for nothing. IMO, the public school issue could be solved without spending another dime on education because money isn't the problem. But nothing will be done.....nothing will even be tried because again, we ignore the root of the weed and just pull the leaves off over and over again.
So far "accountability" has costs me approximately two weeks of missed classes due to endless "assessments." By the time that the TAKS test is over and done with for the year, you can add (are you ready for this?) another two-three WEEKS of missed instruction. That's almost one-sixth of the school year--spent not on TEACHING, but ASSESSING. As far illegal immigration, yes, most of my No Child Left Behind "time" is spent tracking (but not teaching) non English-speaking children. By the way, I teach English!
I hear ya! Actually learning/teaching something has been secondary to equality, or accountability requirements, or Internet in the classrooms etc for the last 50 years now. No matter who is elected, it won't get any better I'm afraid. Oh the kids may get laptops (as I saw one candidate--maybe Edwards propose).......I heard that and said what can a kid who can't read do with a laptop other than LOOK at porn pictures? Laptops? That's all people propose.......or internet access or more crap that doesn't help TEACH children how to do math. I didn't learn one stick of algebra on the damned Internet.
i certainly am not an expert, but my opinion is that NCLB was created for a reason--many of the best educators in the country saw that way too many kids were not getting an education. i will not debate that the program is not a piece of crap, but i do think its better than doing nothing. the feds should learn from their first attempt and keep changing the program until the schools do their job. it is not good enough to say that the kids parents are hopeless. teach the kids---all the kids. its my money and its your job.
We'll see. I ain't writing him off 'till it's a done deal. He resonates with me by far more than any other candidate. Hell, he might still go third party. I'm still waiting for him to pull a Lincoln and win a brokered convention. If Paul is nixed, then I'll start considering my remaining options. I can see that, though I am able to get past his speaking quirks and appreciate the message he represents. It isn't isolationist, it's non-interventionist. Which is what the founding fathers called for. We don't need to police the world and 20 years ago the Republican party wasn't interested in policing the world. September 11th shouldn't have changed that, either. If you try to control everything, maybe you'll see results for a while. But even we aren't strong enough to control the world forever. Our government is trying to do too much and it is getting us into trouble on many fronts. We can't sustain this path we are on but sadly most don't see that. If some candidate made sound proposals to fix our problems, how much traction do you think that candidate would get. They'd probably get laughed at. I am beginning to feel there is a lot invested in the wrong way, so changing it is no small undertaking. It kills me to hear how so many people say, "I like a lot of what Paul says, but he isn't electable." How do front runners become front runners? Politics is a big game with a lot of backs looking to get scratched. It seems like that, anyways. I read something in USA Today about a wealthy individual starting a program rewarding public school math teachers who performed well. It has started attracting better math teachers. It is working and it is private. The public school system won't pay math teachers more than English teachers because it isn't "fair", so I really like the idea of private supplemental funding. The government really is a huge collection of private individuals, anyway, so to me, it makes more sense for people to take matters into their own hand rather than having the government take care of everything. I really believe the federal government is incapable of making education better. Exactly. BS. I don't mind schools getting up to date stuff, but the priority should be teaching and learning, not stuff. How about getting the federal government out of the schools? It can't be fixed from the top down, it has to be fixed from the bottom up. The federal government can keep pushing new programs and they will continue to suck.
Musta been the Mexican... So, you're looking for experience. I see a candidate that I mostly disagree with who is likely going to keep up a lesser virulent form of Bush's foreign policy, whereas Obama will present a more open, grounded foreign policy. The world is tired of our browbeating and saber-rattling. Hillary will be determined to prove that she's tough because she's a woman (IMO) and will likely continue to throw our weight around like we are the country that matters most. I don't see that as necessary or conducive to righting the ship of foreign policy. Domestically, Hillary has more experience, but Obama will have the power of the people behind him like no other candidate (even Paul, most likely). The Republicans will continue their divisive ways and their base will continue to shrink (if Obama wins). Sounds about right to me. Maybe age just isn't as much an indicator as some would have us believe. Anyway, though, I do think a candidate with experience and the right message is a home run - unfortunately that candidate is being overlooked. I really think there is something to be said about having the masses on your side. Few disagreements here, save he who shall not be mentioned. :wink:
i assume all states have to do to accomplish that is to tell the federal govt to keep their $$$. its the feds obligation to jump in if states arent educating the kids. certainly sounds like NCLB isnt the answer, but its uncanny how the teacher unions seem to be against any merit based system
Well, the states would have to ask the federal gubment for some of their money back. I really like the idea of private groups stepping up the plate to ensure quality education. That would be an organization I would donate to that could probably do a better job than the federal government. I also think rich people would be more willing to give money if they weren't forced to. Having a big federal government really seems to detach people from the belief that each of us is a part of the government. But, then again, states like Mississippi and Louisiana have shown a propensity for offering up crap schools, and if some group doesn't step in to help, it looks like state government can't be counted on. Should it be Lousianians and Mississipians that are blamed for failing their own children? The federal government has shown that they can't get the job done, so I am really doubtful that is the way to go. That leads to feelings of entitlement and blame deflection.
