Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Any state can tell the feds that their money is not needed. If the states do not take the money, the states can teach what they please. Don't blame the feds.
Just say no.
States decide what to teach, how it will be taught and who will do the teaching. Any good principal can get rid of a bad teacher.
Where exactly do the feds obtain that money attached to strings, they are so graciously bestowing upon their subjects; the states?
I can't fault your points. I'm conservative too. To me, the bigger tell is that central planning and control fail, every time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
NCLB was designed to hold failing schools (mostly urban) accountable.
However, it enforced lots of stupidity on schools that were already meeting the cut and directed many schools to "teach towards the average" which hurt the more gifted students.
Fast forward and no shock....many states with large urban populations are now getting a "get out of jail free card" from Obama.
So, I fault Bush for a law that was draconian in scope and created a lot of fuss in areas that didn't have a problem....maybe even making things worse. I fault Obama for essentially protecting the parts of the country that refuse to take on the challenge of improving the schools and holding the students and their parents (who am I kidding? Parent) accountable.
You really can't improve some of the craphole schools without stepping on some toes. If a kid won't work and the parent doesn't care....what are you going to do? Oh yeah, blame someone else.
My explanation and support is simple. We tried DOE and rampant teacher's unions. And we ended up with what we have now. An education system that is a laughing stock. Are you advocating that we double down on this farce?
I'm not advocating anything, I'm trying to get you to support your argument. What do you mean we tried the ED? It's been around for over a hundred years, one way or another. What do you think they do, exactly?
And, what rampant teachers' unions are you speaking of? What have union teachers damaged?
Quote:
We managed to put a man on the moon without a dept. of education.
Probably because the ED isn't responsible for the space-program of the United States...
Quote:
What exactly does DOE do that we cannot live without.
So you want to complete remove a department of the federal government, without actually knowing what it does?
Quote:
And what exactly do teacher's unions do for lowering costs, bettering teachers, making smarter students, or any other possible beneficial outcome? Answer: they don't.
Because you say they don't, or because unions don't promote better working environments which means teachers are paid better, provided with better working conditions, and employee benefits which often are only gained through fighting as a unionized labor force?
Quote:
The liberal farce is that the DOE and teacher's unions are anything other than detrimental to the education system. YOU support an argument to the contrary.
I'm not making any argument. I'm demolishing your lack of one. Get serious, or get lost.
Bush didn't just sign it - he proposed it in the first place and asked Kennedy, Boehner et al. to author it.
I wonder why some keep choosing to ignore that?
Maybe because it rewards schools for being horrid and doing the bare minimum. The bill was a joke. The high school I attended back in the day is arguably one of the best public schools in the country. It has both the some best SAT scores and one of the highest passage rates on state tests with the vast majority of students going to four year colleges.
Because of this no child left behind they determined that in order to meet the improvement requirements my school needed a close to a 100% pass rate to avoid being penalized. That's right almost every single student in the school of 1,600 had to pass. Let me ask you how is that ever going to happen?
On the other hand crappy schools elsewhere in the state had much lower goals. Thus my school would have been considered "failing" with a 94% pass rate" and another school would have been considered a great success with a 70% pass rate.
Its a conservative victory, less federal government, more state. Its a good thing to ignore Congresses unconstitutional laws.
The states that got waivers are still getting the money! They just have to say "we are meeting excellent standards in our own way".
Besides if a President exceeds the power granted to him by the constitution I don't care if one particular mandate is good for me. The next one may take away my liberty. Even the progressives may find out the hard way.
The states that got waivers are still getting the money! They just have to say "we are meeting excellent standards in our own way".
Besides if a President exceeds the power granted to him by the constitution I don't care if one particular mandate is good for me. The next one may take away my liberty. Even the progressives may find out the hard way.
No that is not true. If they get the waiver they have to implement parts of RTT.
Race to the Top places the blame for low test scores on the teachers.
Teachers will have a good chunk of their evaluations based on how many of their kids pass the state tests. RTT is just as much about standardized testing as NCLB is.
Now what do you think that will do to low performing schools ?
How many "good" teachers will turn into bad teachers because the kids are failing the state tests ?
The states that got waivers are still getting the money! They just have to say "we are meeting excellent standards in our own way".
Besides if a President exceeds the power granted to him by the constitution I don't care if one particular mandate is good for me. The next one may take away my liberty. Even the progressives may find out the hard way.
Federal money is not always bad. But management by the states is better then management by the federal government.
It makes the money better spent.
As a nation, on the whole, we receive no better investment return then we do from education spending.
Spending federal money on transportation, energy, and education have always proved beneficial. As I said though, its better for the states to manage then federally.
Federal money is not always bad. But management by the states is better then management by the federal government.
It makes the money better spent.
As a nation, on the whole, we receive no better investment return then we do from education spending.
Spending federal money on transportation, energy, and education have always proved beneficial. As I said though, its better for the states to manage then federally.
RTT places more control of the curriculum at the Federal level.
States will have to give up their state curriculum and go with the RTT core curriculum. That's one string attached to the waiver.
Seems to me like states are giving up their right to define their curriculum within the guidelines and take what the Fed gives them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
