Author Topic: Some Political Ruminations  (Read 11987 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Some Political Ruminations
« Reply #105 on: February 03, 2008, 03:08:44 PM »
Not enough said.

Seems to me everywhere i turn it is people with vested interests who are manipulating the system in their favor instead of the childrens. From school superintendent at the state and local level, to principals , to the teachers themselves.

Also seems to me the carrot is federal funding and the stick is removal of same.

If NCLB is such an onerous program, don't implement it and let the feds know you don't need the cash nor the strings attached to it.




Cynthia

  • Guest
Re: Some Political Ruminations
« Reply #106 on: February 03, 2008, 03:14:37 PM »
Funding for training is not sufficient.

The "reading first schools" have had successes, and we are one of them, but at what cost?

My point is that the slippery slope....Reading First schools have to chose a research based reading program....i.e. Houghton Mifflin, but the mandate of the time restraint to teach such programs takes away from the child in the end. They do not receive enough of the Sciences for example.

Nuff said...because the system needs fixed in the details that you don't understand. Read up on Reading First pros and cons, BT.

Cynthia

  • Guest
Re: Some Political Ruminations
« Reply #107 on: February 03, 2008, 03:22:13 PM »
Before you read this, I want you to realize that schools can't do it all in 90 minutes, and have had to spend more time on the program to ensure that each child's educational needs are met. So, since this was written, many schools across the district/nation now devote 120 min.+ as a  minimum to the Reading First curriculum. (Houghton Mifflin)

Time Devoted to Reading
As suggested by our case studies in 2004, our 2005 district
survey found that significantly more Reading First districts
require elementary schools to devote a set amount of time to
reading than non-Reading First districts. Among Title I
districts with Reading First subgrants, 86% require that
elementary schools devote a specified amount of time to
reading, while 57% of non-Reading First districts have this
requirement. Although many states require schools to devote
90 minutes or more to reading in order to qualify for a
subgrant, the district as a whole would not typically be
required to do so.
Although more Reading First districts have this requirement
than non-Reading First districts, the average amount of time
both types of districts require schools to spend on reading is
not significantly different. Both require approximately an
hour and a half, the same amount of time recommended in
the ED?s Guidance for Reading First.
As with most Title I districts in our survey, 88% of ReadingFirst districts reported that they had cut time to some extent
in elementary schools in one or more subjects to make roomfor reading and math. Our current information does not allow
us to draw conclusions about the effect of reducing time in
some subjects to make more time for reading. Our case study
districts had mixed views on the topic. For example, in the
Orleans Central Supervisory Union in Vermont,
Superintendent Ron Paquette said that through Reading First,
reading instruction has improved greatly and reading
achievement has increased in elementary schools. The
emphasis on reading, however, has limited the amount of
teaching in social studies and science. ?Time is not on our
side,? Paquette said.
[/color]
Look at page 16. The data shows non sufficient funds in critical areas.

I am not saying the premise of  the NCLB act is a bad idea...BT. But the broken parts not seen by the naked eye of the Q public are in danger of never being corrected...... To throw out the baby with the bath water won't happen....wishful thinking if Clinton can do just that. The original post was a shoot from the hip frustration on my part to vote for Hillary if she is passionate about making a swift boot to the NCLB. That's not reasonable. I agree. I like a lot of the Reading First school support, actually.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2008, 03:33:20 PM by Cynthia »

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Some Political Ruminations
« Reply #108 on: February 03, 2008, 03:39:59 PM »
Why did we need a NCLB Act in the first place?

Was there a problem looking for a solution?

... or the other way around?


The_Professor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1735
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Some Political Ruminations
« Reply #109 on: February 03, 2008, 03:52:18 PM »
Schools weren't doing their job!

It is not just a funding problem. Education is like a black hole; you can keep pumping money down it and not much additional learning: comes out.The solution has to involve more than money.

Why is this issue so danged complex? Take what an average student is reasonably expected to learn and use THAT as your performance mark. Those that are below that line get special attention. Those dramatically above it, also get special attention. And do it all within present funding or even up it a little if necessary. If they cannot do it with that level of funding, then they need to go to the local officials and get extra funding via SPLOSTS or some other funding. We have TWO SPLOSTS here in Houston County, one for roads and one for schools. And yes, the schools still complain about not having enough money, but then I get the impression they would do that if you gave them 505% more (because they always have).

Or am I missing something?
***************************
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide."
                                 -- Jerry Pournelle, Ph.D

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Some Political Ruminations
« Reply #110 on: February 03, 2008, 04:28:07 PM »
WHERE'S ST. MICHAEL WHEN YOU REALLY NEED HIM?

By Garrison Keillor

Tribune Media Services

Back in the day, we fundamentalists didn't mess with angels, sensing that Catholics owned the angel franchise, part of their dim smoky world of bead-rattling and hocus-pocus and lugubrious statuary, so instead we focused on the Holy Spirit who dwelt in all of us true believers and told us what to do and what to say, which is convenient for people with plenty of self-confidence. You read some Scripture and work up a sweat over it and stand up in the sunlit sanctuary, no dinging or chanting, no costumes or choreography, and you open your mouth and out comes Truth, such as the doctrine of Separation from the World, which was appealing to those of us with no social skills - if people didn't like us, it was proof of our righteousness.

The idea that I was right and most other people were wrong stuck with me through my cocksure youth and some of middle age, but then comes the perilous passage of life when a man lies awake thinking about the prostate and the mitral valve, and your interest in Truth fades a little compared to your interest in winged beings who might come and rescue people in serious trouble. Nowadays I think more about angels. And sometimes I slip into Catholic churches to sit and commune with any resident angels and to light a few candles, especially for young people in trouble.

The sorrows of old age are tedious; it's the disasters of the young that tear at your heart. The son of an old friend has a bad accident and damages his spinal cord and now is in rehab, trying to put as much of his life together as he can. The daughter of an old friend is shot in broad daylight in the streets of Johannesburg, carrying her infant. A young man's little boy sprouts a horrible brain tumor and the father suspends his studies for several years to care for him, meanwhile his wife leaves him. These are grievous situations for which I sit in a cold empty church and look at St. Michael and ask him to intervene.

And then there is the grief that old righteous people inflict on the young, such as our public schools. I'm looking at U.S. Department of Education statistics on reading achievement and see that here in Minnesota - proud, progressive Minnesota - on a 500-point test (average score: 225), 27 percent of fourth-graders score below basic proficiency, and black and Hispanic kids score 30-some points lower than white on average, and the 30 percent of public school kids who come from households in poverty (who qualify for reduced-price school lunches) score 27 points lower than those who don't come from poverty.

Reading is the key to everything. Teaching children to read is a fundamental moral obligation of the society. That 27 percent are at serious risk of crippling illiteracy is an outrageous scandal.

This is a bleak picture for an old Democrat. Face it, the schools are not run by Republican oligarchs in top hats and spats but by perfectly nice, caring, sharing people, with a smattering of yoga/raga/tofu/mojo/mantra folks like my old confreres. Nice people are failing these kids, but when they are called on it, they get very huffy. When the grand poobah Ph.D.s of education stand up and blow, they speak with great confidence about theories of teaching, and considering the test results, the bums ought to be thrown out.

There is much evidence that teaching phonics really works, especially with kids with learning disabilities, a growing constituency. But because phonics is associated with behaviorism and with conservatives, and because the Current Occupant has spoken on the subject, my fellow liberals are opposed.

Liberal dogma says that each child is inherently gifted and will read if only he is read to. This was true of my grandson; it is demonstrably not true of many kids, including my sandy-haired, gap-toothed daughter. The No Child Left Behind initiative has plenty of flaws, but the Democrats who are trashing it should take another look at the Reading First program. It is morally disgusting if Democrats throw out Republican programs that are good for children. Life is not a scrimmage. Grown-ups who stick with dogma even though it condemns children to second-class lives should be put on buses and sent to North Dakota to hoe wheat for a year.

St. Michael, I beg you to send angels to watch over fourth-graders who are struggling to read, because the righteous among us are not doing the job.

(Garrison Keillor's "A Prairie Home Companion" can be heard Saturday nights on public radio stations across the country.)

(c) 2008 by Garrison Keillor. All rights reserved.
http://www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatures/subcategory.jsp?catid=1945
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Cynthia

  • Guest
Re: Some Political Ruminations
« Reply #111 on: February 03, 2008, 05:27:55 PM »
Take what an average student is reasonably expected to learn and use THAT as your performance mark. Those that are below that line get special attention. Those dramatically above it, also get special attention.

I agree with this statement.
Currently, in the area of mathematics, for example, these reasonable connections are not happening. Perhaps in time, but for now, the tests do not measure what we are told to teach. Children who do not make the grade----students who test out below level, are actually not being placed in special education these days, either. The regular education is expected to teach them as well. That has drastically changed in the past few years.


True, it's not all about the funding. My original complaint was more about the way NCLB grades school systems--"accountability marks". It is not a fair and balanced method in terms of assessment.  Currently, it is not equitable. Kids are not being given a chance to improve because every one must, MUST reach grade level or else. This is the worst element of the NCLB act. To compare all children to only one standard. High standards are not unreasonable, indeed. The method of punishment however, is.

Schools were broken, and remain damaged to say the least. The NCLB has at least offered programs that might work over time, if they allow for the total education of the total population of American children. Tweaking is what is needed. The expectations of the educator to step up training in order to be more "highly qualified" is a great idea. Like I said, there are many great things about the NCLB. But, two steps forward and five steps back just doesn't a fixed system make.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2008, 05:32:36 PM by Cynthia »