PDA

View Full Version : Obama on education



Leroy Lizard
3/4/2010, 02:26 AM
You Libs should be totally pissed about this:

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/02/22/23esea_ep.h29.html

Here is a blog that summarizes the impact:

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2010/02/what_role_the_federal_governme.html

In a nutshell, Obama is proposing that states lose their Title I funding (which goes to poor schools) if they don't adopt the new national standards. The states were sold on the standards partially because they were told the standards would be voluntary. So much for that.

Title I is no small amount of money. This is nothing more than using poor children as hostages to move Obama's policies along. IMO, this is the sickest policy suggestion I have heard coming out of the White House in a long time.

Here's another opinion:

http://blog.commoncore.org/?p=159


In its zeal to support the creation of national ELA and math standards, the Obama administration is making strategic mistakes that threaten to bring down that effort altogether. Yesterday no less than President Obama himself announced that his administration will seek to tie eligibility for Title I funding to a state’s having career and college-readiness standards in place. Coming on the heels of the Dept. of Education restricting its Race to the Top funding competition only to states participating in the National Governors Association/Council for Chief State School Officers standards initiative, this sends the clear message that states not willing to adopt these standards are no longer welcome at the department trough. Even for formula funding that they have been receiving for decades.

This is a huge mistake. Not only will tying Title I funding to the standards effort further isolate independent states like Texas and Alaska, which have refused to participate in the standards initiative all along, but the move will also threaten more than a half dozen other states such as Massachusetts, Indiana, and California which have good standards already and for which adopting the new NGA/CCSSO standards might be a close call. States that adopt the standards should be doing so because they improve upon their current standards, not because the federal government is, in effect, forcing their hand.

Folks at NGA and CCSSO—which are, after all, state-based organizations—must realize this. I can only assume that today they are shaking their heads over what their “pals” in the federal government are doing on their behalf. Who needs enemies with friends like these?

Soonrboy
3/4/2010, 02:02 PM
this is why the private schools should want no part of vouchers. If schools are getting gov't money, then the government is going to have a say into what is going on in the private schools.

Leroy Lizard
3/4/2010, 08:16 PM
"Say into"? Yeah, like the following person had a say into how schools were run.


http://liamscheff.com/daily/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/stalin.jpg

yermom
3/4/2010, 08:40 PM
i wonder what those standards are specifically.

something needs to happen. it's way too easy to get through school without learning crap. other countries seem to be way better at education than we are

47straight
3/4/2010, 09:12 PM
I thought that the left hated no child left behind and all the nationalized standards it put into play.

Guess it was just Bush they hated. That's what I suspected anyway.

47straight
3/4/2010, 09:14 PM
i wonder what those standards are specifically.

something needs to happen. it's way too easy to get through school without learning crap. other countries seem to be way better at education than we are

I agree that the devil's in the details.

FWIW, sometimes the descrepancies with other countries lies in the tracking of students into regular and vocational paths, and only testing/reporting the regular paths for the use in comparisons. But it does seem like we succ at the maths.

Stitch Face
3/4/2010, 10:10 PM
"Say into"? Yeah, like the following person had a say into how schools were run.


http://liamscheff.com/daily/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/stalin.jpg

You're not saying our democratically-elected government is considering something dictatorial are you? That's...that's...pure hyperbole!

Leroy Lizard
3/5/2010, 12:23 AM
i wonder what those standards are specifically.

Some states will get more rigorous standards, but others will have to dumb down. That is why Texas didn't originally want to join in the Race to the Top competition. The feds then looked at Texas and said, "You WILL adopt these weaker standards!" Hence the Title I attack.

Texas wants to use its own standards that it spent millions creating and adopting. All of the curricular materials they have developed are aimed at their own standards. In that past, that was a state's right. Not anymore. The Feds are considering telling Texas that it will destroy the funding of schools in high-poverty areas if they don't adopt the national standards.

Here is how it played out.

Step 1. The Feds tell the states they are seeking "volunteers" to work on a set of standards that will be purely voluntary. No harm in that right?

Step 2. The Feds tell states that they will not be eligible for ARRA stimulus money unless they participate. (So much for voluntary participation.)

Step 3. The Feds tell states that they must adopt new standards to be eligible for Race to the Top money. (So much for voluntary adoption.)

Step 4. The Feds are now considering telling states that they must adopt new standards to be eligible for Title I funds.

In other words, tell states that adoption is voluntary to sucker them into helping create the standards, then threaten to rip their funding out from under them if they don't adopt them.

How bad is it? States are adopting standards that haven't even been released yet. Does that sound crazy? It's true.

And who is to blame? Barack Obama.


You're not saying our democratically-elected government is considering something dictatorial are you? That's...that's...pure hyperbole!

Heh. It's also true.

Leroy Lizard
3/5/2010, 12:30 AM
I thought that the left hated no child left behind and all the nationalized standards it put into play.

Guess it was just Bush they hated. That's what I suspected anyway.

They're starting to turn on Obama, now that they realize the man they elected had even harsher attitudes toward schools than his predecessor. I don't know many people at the public school level, but I hear there isn't a lot of love for Obama right now.

TopDawg
3/5/2010, 11:24 AM
Some states will get more rigorous standards, but others will have to dumb down.

Wait. So this proposal will make some states get more rigorous standards but will force others to dumb down? How does that take shape? Will they be putting a "learning cap" on those states? I can see how it might lower the minimum requirements for a state/school, but if that state/school is already committed to achieving at a higher level, won't they still have that opportunity? Or, will they really be forced to dumb down as you say?

NormanPride
3/5/2010, 12:15 PM
The problem is that you can't just add the government's standards on top of your own. It takes too much time to teach to one standard. Don't even get me started on "teaching to the standard"...

GottaHavePride
3/5/2010, 12:59 PM
**** standards. I'm a proponent of "teaching the damn material". I don't give two ****s what some idiotic test says. Can kids add? Can they make change? Can they balance a checkbook? Can they write a sentence that is comprehensible to another human being? And so on...

yermom
3/5/2010, 01:03 PM
how do you know they can add, etc...?

setem
3/5/2010, 01:04 PM
OKC Public schools is going to lose a ton of money next year as it is! We just got uniforms at U.S. Grant and my boss let the kids know that these will be the last ones they get for a long long long time! Not sure how this will hurt is...will it?

TopDawg
3/5/2010, 02:01 PM
The problem is that you can't just add the government's standards on top of your own. It takes too much time to teach to one standard. Don't even get me started on "teaching to the standard"...

There are many problems, not the least of which is that "standards" is such a vague term. I think we all agree that our educational system should have to meet certain standards. But what should those standards be and how should we make sure we are meeting them?

NormanPride
3/5/2010, 03:13 PM
In most cases, "standards" means "standardized test" because it's easier to quantify teaching that way.

badger
3/5/2010, 03:20 PM
I was highly disappointed that Oklahoma didn't get that grant award (15 other states did), which would have rewarded our state's best teachers, among other things. Ah well, guess there's always phase 2 :(

Leroy Lizard
3/5/2010, 03:57 PM
Wait. So this proposal will make some states get more rigorous standards but will force others to dumb down? How does that take shape? Will they be putting a "learning cap" on those states? I can see how it might lower the minimum requirements for a state/school, but if that state/school is already committed to achieving at a higher level, won't they still have that opportunity? Or, will they really be forced to dumb down as you say?

The majority of teachers base their teaching on the curricular materials they are given, and these material are written to correlate to standards.

Also, state tests are written to match the standards. So if the new standards don't have a particular skill included, the state tests won't either. And therefore teachers won't teach them these skills.


**** standards. I'm a proponent of "teaching the damn material". I don't give two ****s what some idiotic test says. Can kids add? Can they make change? Can they balance a checkbook? Can they write a sentence that is comprehensible to another human being? And so on...

Can kids add? That's a no-brainer. Can kids solve box-and-whisker plots? That depends on the state.

All of the standards include raw skills. That won't change. Will students be able to analyze a soliloquy? That depends on the state. If the standards don't have it included, teachers won't teach it.


There are many problems, not the least of which is that "standards" is such a vague term. I think we all agree that our educational system should have to meet certain standards. But what should those standards be and how should we make sure we are meeting them?

After the Feds grab control it won't matter, because the citizens in the state will no longer have any power to define those standards. Essentially, students will be taught whatever Obama wants them taught.

Leroy Lizard
3/5/2010, 03:57 PM
I was highly disappointed that Oklahoma didn't get that grant award (15 other states did), which would have rewarded our state's best teachers, among other things. Ah well, guess there's always phase 2

Oklahoma's problem is that it's a Republican state and largely white. Guess who also got denied? South Dakota, Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, Utah, and Kansas.

Texas, Montana, Alaska, and North Dakota didn't apply, otherwise they would have been rejected too.

Look at the electoral map below and tell me if you can't see the correlation:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/


And who has the final say over which states get approved? Arne Duncan, Obama's crony from Chicago.

So much for democracy and non-partisanship.

soonerscuba
3/5/2010, 04:22 PM
You're not saying our democratically-elected government is considering something dictatorial are you? That's...that's...pure hyperbole!Just because you keep repeating dictatorial as if you have any sort of concept of the term, doesn't make it any more true. You are no different than the babies with their lists of why Bush was a fascist.

TopDawg
3/5/2010, 04:34 PM
The majority of teachers base their teaching on the curricular materials they are given, and these material are written to correlate to standards.

Also, state tests are written to match the standards. So if the new standards don't have a particular skill included, the state tests won't either. And therefore teachers won't teach them these skills.

I understand all of that. And I'm with those of you who think that using standardized testing as the primary measure of success is flawed, but how does this new policy make things worse? States will still be testing to a standard. If their existing standard is lower than the federal standard, they'll have to raise it. If their existing standard is higher than the federal standard, they still have the choice to maintain it. Right?

Leroy Lizard
3/5/2010, 04:38 PM
Dictatorial? Hmmm...

I have billions of dollars in discretionary spending that I can use to make sure states adopt my own vision. If they don't, I will withhold that money purely at my own whim.

Obama forced California to change its laws regarding teacher unions by threatening to wipe the state out financially. There were no checks and balances. No one could oppose him. If California dared speak out, they risked losing the federal funds. So they had to change the law, even though the state didn't want to.

What right does Obama have to tell California how it deals with its teacher unions? Like unions or not, the contractual relationship between a teacher and his or her state is a state matter. Well, it used to be.

What right does Obama have to tell teachers in Oklahoma what subjects they should teach? Well, rights mean nothing when you hold a weapon in your hand.

Dictatorial?? ****'in A!

TopDawg
3/5/2010, 04:41 PM
What right does Obama have to tell teachers in Oklahoma what subjects they should teach? Well, rights mean nothing when you hold a weapon in your hand.

Well, if he's giving them federal money, I think he has a right to tell them what they should teach. If they want the freedom to teach whatever the hell they want, they don't have to take the money. Right?

badger
3/5/2010, 04:43 PM
So much for democracy and non-partisanship.

This is why these states continue to vote the way that they do :(

Leroy Lizard
3/5/2010, 04:44 PM
I understand all of that. And I'm with those of you who think that using standardized testing as the primary measure of success is flawed, but how does this new policy make things worse? States will still be testing to a standard. If their existing standard is lower than the federal standard, they'll have to raise it. If their existing standard is higher than the federal standard, they still have the choice to maintain it. Right?

No. One of the primary criteria of receiving funds is that the states OFFICIALLY adopt the national standards. This isn't just a mere pledge. You have to actually legislate the new standards into place.

TopDawg
3/5/2010, 04:48 PM
No. One of the primary criteria of receiving funds is that the states OFFICIALLY adopt the national standards. This isn't just a mere pledge. You have to actually legislate the new standards into place.

Either you're not understanding me or I don't get what these standards are and you do. So I'm curious about the same thing yermom was curious about earlier...what are these standards?

Leroy Lizard
3/5/2010, 04:50 PM
Well, if he's giving them federal money, I think he has a right to tell them what they should teach. If they want the freedom to teach whatever the hell they want, they don't have to take the money. Right?

Federal money? That money was taken from the citizens of the state.

This is what pisses me off the most about Democrats. They think tax revenue is a private possession of the federal government and that we should be thankful any time they give any of it to us. It's not their money; it's OUR money!!

You confiscate the money from the citizens of the state, and then tell them they can have some of it back if they comply with your wishes. And you see nothing wrong with that?

Suppose this was Bush doing this and he threatened to crush states financially if they didn't adopt pro-life legislation. After all, it's his money, right? You should be willing to sit up and beg if you want the money, right? Would you would support that?

NormanPride
3/5/2010, 04:51 PM
Specific tests, I'm assuming.

Leroy Lizard
3/5/2010, 04:53 PM
Either you're not understanding me or I don't get what these standards are and you do. So I'm curious about the same thing yermom was curious about earlier...what are these standards?

Example from Oklahoma. They call their standards PASS, but I'm not sure what that stands for.


Grade 2

Standard 1: Phonological/Phonemic Awareness – The student will demonstrate the ability to hear, identify, and manipulate words, syllables, onsets, rimes, and individual sounds (phonemes) in spoken words.
1. Demonstrate an awareness of the sounds that are made by different letters by distinguishing beginning, middle, and ending sounds in words, rhyming words, and clearly pronouncing blends and vowel sounds.
a. Segment and blend the phonemes of one- and two-syllable words.
Example: salad = /s/ /a/ /l/ /a/ /d/, /s/ /a/ /l/ /a/ /d/ = salad
b. Substitute a phoneme change to a word.
Example: slap, change the /p/ to /m/ = slam

Leroy Lizard
3/5/2010, 04:54 PM
Specific tests, I'm assuming.

No, standards are the topics that are to be taught. Later, you test the students on these topics.

TopDawg
3/5/2010, 04:58 PM
Federal money? That money was taken from the citizens of the state.

This is what pisses me off the most about Democrats. They think tax revenue is a private possession of the federal government and that we should be thankful any time they give any of it to us. It's not their money; it's OUR money!!

If you want to be mad about the fact that Uncle Sam is taxing you, I won't get in the way. But now that he has our money, I'm glad that he expects certain things out of the schools he's offering it to. I wish he (Uncle Sam/Bush and Obama) had been as strict with the banks.

TopDawg
3/5/2010, 05:03 PM
Example from Oklahoma. They call their standards PASS, but I'm not sure what that stands for.

So if the federal standard is higher than Oklahoma's existing standard, then Oklahoma will have to raise the standard. But if the federal standard is lower than Oklahoma's existing standard, can't Oklahoma decide that, although they've legislated the federal standards into play, they will continue to maintain their higher standards? They are meeting...and exceeding...their agreement with the federal government.

They had no extra incentive to meet their higher standards before, yet you seem to think that once they are receiving federal money to meet lower standards they will decide that their higher standards aren't worth it anymore. At least, that's what I got out of your "dumb down" statement.

soonerscuba
3/5/2010, 05:23 PM
Federal money? That money was taken from the citizens of the state.

This is what pisses me off the most about Democrats. They think tax revenue is a private possession of the federal government and that we should be thankful any time they give any of it to us. It's not their money; it's OUR money!!Depends on the state. For example, Oklahoma would be up **** creek without federal dollars. I just fail to see how expectations tied to federal dollars is tyranny of education, yet the national highway system is a national treasure, unless of course that has become a vessel of socialist, mind control communism in the last year too. It hasn't has it? OH GOD THEY KNOW HOW TO GET TO MY HOUSE!!!!!!!!

NormanPride
3/5/2010, 05:36 PM
So if the federal standard is higher than Oklahoma's existing standard, then Oklahoma will have to raise the standard. But if the federal standard is lower than Oklahoma's existing standard, can't Oklahoma decide that, although they've legislated the federal standards into play, they will continue to maintain their higher standards? They are meeting...and exceeding...their agreement with the federal government.

They had no extra incentive to meet their higher standards before, yet you seem to think that once they are receiving federal money to meet lower standards they will decide that their higher standards aren't worth it anymore. At least, that's what I got out of your "dumb down" statement.

Some standards are incompatible. If your standard values arts above athletics, then the US standard may make your standard impossible to achieve. If you require more diverse history and language but the US standard requires higher level math then your history and language programs may suffer.

NormanPride
3/5/2010, 05:37 PM
Depends on the state. For example, Oklahoma would be up **** creek without federal dollars. I just fail to see how expectations tied to federal dollars is tyranny of education, yet the national highway system is a national treasure, unless of course that has become a vessel of socialist, mind control communism in the last year too. It hasn't has it? OH GOD THEY KNOW HOW TO GET TO MY HOUSE!!!!!!!!

Actually, we had a thread about this earlier. I think OK gets about $87k more than it gives.

yermom
3/5/2010, 05:37 PM
they did that with highways and the drinking age... (that's a whole other thread though ;))

soonerloyal
3/5/2010, 05:44 PM
Leroy and his ilk during the Bush years: "YAY! Give us thine homespun wisdom of All things Neil Bush/NCLB, O Dubya! We are Thy tools, er, thy servants, whatever you say, we'll regurgitate!"

"Is our children learning?"

Leroy and his ilk during the first year of Obama: "Woe is us! The sky is falling! Socialism! Hitler! Whatever Fox News is saying! Oh, the HORROR!!"

As predictable, as regular as a senior on Metamucil.

Stitch Face
3/5/2010, 05:48 PM
Dictatorial? Hmmm...

I have billions of dollars in discretionary spending that I can use to make sure states adopt my own vision. If they don't, I will withhold that money purely at my own whim.

Obama forced California to change its laws regarding teacher unions by threatening to wipe the state out financially. There were no checks and balances. No one could oppose him. If California dared speak out, they risked losing the federal funds. So they had to change the law, even though the state didn't want to.

What right does Obama have to tell California how it deals with its teacher unions? Like unions or not, the contractual relationship between a teacher and his or her state is a state matter. Well, it used to be.

What right does Obama have to tell teachers in Oklahoma what subjects they should teach? Well, rights mean nothing when you hold a weapon in your hand.

Dictatorial?? ****'in A!

You can't convince scuba. He's too far up Obama's butt to ever find his way out.

Stitch Face
3/5/2010, 05:53 PM
Just because you keep repeating dictatorial as if you have any sort of concept of the term, doesn't make it any more true. You are no different than the babies with their lists of why Bush was a fascist.

Meow! Looks like we're having a Liberal Pansy Meltdown all over the board today.

soonerloyal
3/5/2010, 05:57 PM
Yeah, that's the best you can come up with? "Liberal Pansy Meltdown"?

Lame, dude. LAME.

TopDawg
3/5/2010, 06:03 PM
Some standards are incompatible. If your standard values arts above athletics, then the US standard may make your standard impossible to achieve. If you require more diverse history and language but the US standard requires higher level math then your history and language programs may suffer.

So, then, the question still remains...what are the standards? The ones the federal government would require. It's good to have the Oklahoma ones as an example, but we need to see what the federal standards would be too.

Again, I think there's a lot of improvement that could be made in how we test standards. But if your standard of diverse history and language is compromising your students' ability in math which is compromising their ability to succeed in college or the workforce...maybe those standards need to be examined.

Leroy Lizard
3/5/2010, 06:18 PM
So if the federal standard is higher than Oklahoma's existing standard, then Oklahoma will have to raise the standard. But if the federal standard is lower than Oklahoma's existing standard, can't Oklahoma decide that, although they've legislated the federal standards into play, they will continue to maintain their higher standards? They are meeting...and exceeding...their agreement with the federal government.

I see the problem. You are equating standards with "quality," much like a manufacturer uses tolerances to measure quality. This isn't like that. We are talking about a change in the topics that are covered each year.

But you are missing the point. If Oklahoma decides it wants its students to learn X, why should the federal government intervene?

Even if we decided that the federal government should dictate a national curriculum, shouldn't there be checks and balances on the process? This is all based on one man's whim.

If you think otherwise, consider that states are being forced to adopt standards that are not even finished.

Leroy Lizard
3/5/2010, 06:22 PM
Again, I think there's a lot of improvement that could be made in how we test standards. But if your standard of diverse history and language is compromising your students' ability in math which is compromising their ability to succeed in college or the workforce...maybe those standards need to be examined.

We don't know, because we (the general public) have not been allowed to see them yet. (A few privileged people have been allowed to view them and they are the ones that have said the standards will dumb down curriculum for some states.)

Sure, they will become available for public comment soon, but states have already been forced to adopt them. What's the point of having a public debate about standards that the state has already committed to adopting and with no regard for democratic process?

yermom
3/5/2010, 06:23 PM
is Obama actually drafting it? is this some executive order?

did i miss a link to what is actually happening?

Leroy Lizard
3/5/2010, 06:25 PM
Depends on the state. For example, Oklahoma would be up **** creek without federal dollars. I just fail to see how expectations tied to federal dollars is tyranny of education, yet the national highway system is a national treasure, unless of course that has become a vessel of socialist, mind control communism in the last year too. It hasn't has it? OH GOD THEY KNOW HOW TO GET TO MY HOUSE!!!!!!!!

Forcing states to adopt speed limits by the federal government is very much a tyrannical act. We looked the other way when the feds put the screws to Montana (or was it Wyoming?) back in the 1970s. By doing so, we taught the feds an important lesson: money is a powerful weapon to enforce whatever laws the feds want with no need for political discourse.

Now, imagine the outcry if Bush had been President and the states that voted heavily Democratic were denied federal funds. Well, that's what's happening here.

Leroy Lizard
3/5/2010, 06:28 PM
Leroy and his ilk during the Bush years: "YAY! Give us thine homespun wisdom of All things Neil Bush/NCLB, O Dubya! We are Thy tools, er, thy servants, whatever you say, we'll regurgitate!"

What specifically are you talking about? What have I said in the past on these issues?

NOTE: NCLB was drafted as legislation and voted on democratically.

BTW, if you despise the NCLB, why are you supporting Obama on education? He isn't dismantling it. He's giving Arne Duncan a powerful tool to enforce it using strong-arm techniques. Those teachers in Rhode Island were fired because the feds required it for the school to get its money. Forget public debate, lobbying Congress, and voting... none of those matter anymore.

Leroy Lizard
3/5/2010, 06:35 PM
is Obama actually drafting it? is this some executive order?

It's discretionary spending. He has given Arne Duncan billions of dollars to spend at his own discretion, with no control. So whatever Arne wants, Arne gets.

For example, suppose I want to wipe out hamburgers. I don't try to draft legislation; that might get voted down. Instead, I threaten states that I will withhold money from them if they don't pass legislation banning hamburgers.

Does it matter if Oklahoma likes hamburgers? Nope. It's all about what *I* want.

TUSooner
3/5/2010, 07:12 PM
What about my constitutional right to be stupid and ignorant, and to have stupid ignorant kids ?!

TUSooner
3/5/2010, 07:14 PM
It's discretionary spending. He has given Arne Duncan billions of dollars to spend at his own discretion, with no control. So whatever Arne wants, Arne gets.

For example, suppose I want to wipe out hamburgers. I don't try to draft legislation; that might get voted down. Instead, I threaten states that I will withhold money from them if they don't pass legislation banning hamburgers.

Does it matter if Oklahoma likes hamburgers? Nope. It's all about what *I* want.

Or you could just tell the gubment to shove its money.

Stitch Face
3/5/2010, 07:27 PM
Yeah, that's the best you can come up with? "Liberal Pansy Meltdown"?

Lame, dude. LAME.

Whoa, Mama! It was actually more of an indirect joke at LAS's tizzy than a swipe at you big government types.

Leroy Lizard
3/5/2010, 07:40 PM
Or you could just tell the gubment to shove its money.

Texas did.

So the feds are now trying to change the rules so that Title I funds will be pulled as well. And if Texas spurns it, they will simply try something else. Sooner or later, they will break you.

Texas can't spurn Title I, because the money is enormous.

This isn't like a rich parent leaving you out of his will. This money was taxed from Texas citizens, and the feds are going to give it to other states they think are more compliant.

It's like having your parents take your money, promising to will it to you later. They then make demands on your lifestyle under threats of giving it to your siblings.

Doesn't sound so cool, does it?

Stitch Face
3/5/2010, 07:54 PM
Texas did.

So the feds are now trying to change the rules so that Title I funds will be pulled as well. And if Texas spurns it, they will simply try something else. Sooner or later, they will break you.

Texas can't spurn Title I, because the money is enormous.

This isn't like a rich parent leaving you out of his will. This money was taxed from Texas citizens, and the feds are going to give it to other states they think are more compliant.

It's like having your parents take your money, promising to will it to you later. They then make demands on your lifestyle under threats of giving it to your siblings.

Doesn't sound so cool, does it?

I don't know why you keep harping on this. To imply the government is doing something unjust automatically makes you an infantile lunatic.

TopDawg
3/5/2010, 08:04 PM
I don't know why you keep harping on this. To imply the government is doing something unjust automatically makes you an infantile lunatic.

Kinda like how questioning Bush made you unpatriotic, right?

Leroy Lizard
3/5/2010, 08:04 PM
Heh.

Sorry for not catching the sarcasm. So many in here would gladly hand the feds their gonads that it's hard to distinguish sarcasm from seriousness.

Stitch Face
3/5/2010, 08:18 PM
Kinda like how questioning Bush made you unpatriotic, right?

I don't recall ever thinking or stating that questioning Bush was unpatriotic and don't to this day. Do you have some evidence to the contrary?

I happen to think both our current and most recent former president are guilty of overspending and abusing executive power. So I don't quite understand your insinuation.

TAFBSooner
3/5/2010, 09:28 PM
PASS = Priority Academic Student Skills

Leroy Lizard
3/5/2010, 10:08 PM
Thanks, TAFB. I guess I could have looked it up. Lazy.

SoonerJack
3/6/2010, 05:45 AM
As I understand it Race to the Top funding was decided before states were "asked" to get on board.

Guess what. Illinois is one of the winners!!

Woohoo! Transparency! Hope AND Change all rolled into one!!

Leroy Lizard
3/6/2010, 12:30 PM
Some states were pre-approved, if that's what you mean. I think Illinois was one of them.


Woohoo! Transparency! Hope AND Change all rolled into one!!

Hope and change for Illinois. Not so sure about the rest.

GKeeper316
3/6/2010, 07:08 PM
where was the outcry when bush was pushing no child left behind down our throats?

bush's failed education policy has done nothing but destroy music and art programs in america. it has resulted in a substantial drop in funding for gifted programs nationwide... so instead of the best and brightest being able to learn in an environment condusive to achievement, schools are spending a ton of money trying to get morons to know how to do fractal math.

and all we do is blame the teachers.

i disagree with the president on this one. you arent failing kids if they dont want to learn. its up to the parents to get thier kids to understand they arent going to be a pro athlete or a rapper or win the lottery.

Soonrboy
3/6/2010, 07:30 PM
Reading and math. All day. If you suck at reading and math, you're not going to do well in school and the school day is long and laborious. Who would want to go somewhere and suck all day long? NCLB and the test for standards are a laugh. We are producing children who are not getting enough art, science and social studies. Our day is spent on reading and math to get them ready for the test. The lower the socio-economic makeup of your school, the worse it gets. Schools are not the same from building to building. The background of the children are not the same. To suggest that an inner city school can get the same results as a surburban school within the same amount of time is ridiculous, and if you thing otherwise you need to get your head out of your *** and visit a school instead of sitting on a couch lamblasting everything.

Anyone can teach in a school where the average parent salary is close to the middle. You want to test a teacher's strength is to put them in the poverty schools and see how they function. We are doing a big injustice to our kids who need it the most. I don't know what the answer is. The longer I'm in education, the sicker I get. My teachers work their asses off every day and carry home the load of the day, both physically and mentally. It takes a toll.
thanks for letting me vent for a moment.

Leroy Lizard
3/6/2010, 08:06 PM
where was the outcry when bush was pushing no child left behind down our throats?

He didn't.

Read the thread with comprehension. The issue here is that policy is being dictated with no regard to the democratic process. The NCLB, on the other hand, was voted on in Congress and passed. It was not forced down our throats by Bush.

Sure, we can gripe about NCLB. But "we, the people" had a voice in the matter. These latest policy directives not only circumvent the democratic process, they use our money as a weapon to enforce them.

Whose money? Our money.


i disagree with the president on this one. you arent failing kids if they dont want to learn. its up to the parents to get thier kids to understand they arent going to be a pro athlete or a rapper or win the lottery.

Teachers have to teach too. This isn't just on the parents.

Leroy Lizard
3/6/2010, 08:14 PM
Reading and math. All day. If you suck at reading and math, you're not going to do well in school and the school day is long and laborious. Who would want to go somewhere and suck all day long? NCLB and the test for standards are a laugh. We are producing children who are not getting enough art, science and social studies. Our day is spent on reading and math to get them ready for the test. The lower the socio-economic makeup of your school, the worse it gets. Schools are not the same from building to building. The background of the children are not the same. To suggest that an inner city school can get the same results as a surburban school within the same amount of time is ridiculous, and if you thing otherwise you need to get your head out of your *** and visit a school instead of sitting on a couch lamblasting everything.

Anyone can teach in a school where the average parent salary is close to the middle. You want to test a teacher's strength is to put them in the poverty schools and see how they function. We are doing a big injustice to our kids who need it the most. I don't know what the answer is. The longer I'm in education, the sicker I get. My teachers work their asses off every day and carry home the load of the day, both physically and mentally. It takes a toll.
thanks for letting me vent for a moment.

While I can agree and disagree on many of your points, your post is not relevant to the discussion.

So, let's make it relevant.

A school in Rhode Island recently had to fire all of its teaching staff and principal. It can rehire no more than half. It can't rehire the principal.

Who decided to take this action? The school board. Why?

Was it because the community decided that a new staff was needed? No.

Was it because the state decided that a new staff was needed? No.

The feds decided it. They waved $500,000 in front of the school board and said, "If you want it, fire the staff." So they did.

And who gave the feds the money and power to do this? The feds did. This policy wasn't voted on by representatives in DC. In fact, the public wasn't even asked its opinion on the matter. Not even those in Rhode Island. The policy was created on one man's whim.

Does that sound like democracy in action?

47straight
3/9/2010, 05:50 AM
where was the outcry when bush was pushing no child left behind down our throats?

You didn't notice nearly 8 years of straight bitching about it?

NormanPride
3/9/2010, 06:22 AM
While I can agree and disagree on many of your points, your post is not relevant to the discussion.

So, let's make it relevant.

A school in Rhode Island recently had to fire all of its teaching staff and principal. It can rehire no more than half. It can't rehire the principal.

Who decided to take this action? The school board. Why?

Was it because the community decided that a new staff was needed? No.

Was it because the state decided that a new staff was needed? No.

The feds decided it. They waved $500,000 in front of the school board and said, "If you want it, fire the staff." So they did.

And who gave the feds the money and power to do this? The feds did. This policy wasn't voted on by representatives in DC. In fact, the public wasn't even asked its opinion on the matter. Not even those in Rhode Island. The policy was created on one man's whim.

Does that sound like democracy in action?

Except that the Superintendent didn't fire them because of a standard, she fired them because their union refused to negotiate small changes in their work habits to help reach the standard. The fed is in no way responsible for the Superintendent's or the Union's actions. This is something that could have been completely avoided if the two sides were willing to negotiate. And before you start, the changes were minor, and would have helped the students. The standard was working in this case.

Leroy Lizard
3/9/2010, 07:16 PM
Except that the Superintendent didn't fire them because of a standard, she fired them because their union refused to negotiate small changes in their work habits to help reach the standard. The fed is in no way responsible for the Superintendent's or the Union's actions.

The teachers were actually fired to meet requirements of the federal turnaround model, which requires that all of the teachers and principal be fired and no more than half rehired. It is ludicrous to think that the feds had nothing to do with this. The school board was definitely eyeing the $1,500,000 they were going to receive over three years.

Get ready for more. California just identified 187 schools on the list for reform, and many of those will either be forced to close or have their teaching staff scuttled. No matter what, all will lose their principals, regardless of their job performance.

And teachers are now going to have to cave in to demands on a wide front because there is an external entity giving out money to fire teachers. Who can negotiate anything under those conditions?

Here is more on the Rhode Island situation:


Gallo wanted teachers to agree to a set of six conditions she said were crucial to improving the school. Teachers would have to spend more time with students in and out of the classroom and commit to training sessions after school with other teachers.

But Gallo said she could pay teachers for only some of the extra duties. Union leaders said they wanted teachers to be paid for more of the additional work and at a higher pay rate — $90 per hour rather than the $30 per hour offered by Gallo.

The school is going to receive an extra $500,000 per year if we agree to work longer hours, but you aren't going to give me any of the $500,000? (Which the school board cannot.)

Yeah, I'd be upset too.

I can understand working extra for an organization when times are tough. But here the school was going to be given extra money to implement the changes.

TopDawg
4/5/2010, 09:45 PM
I had kept this thread open in my iPhone browser thing and stumbled on it tonight. Sorry for not replying sooner (and sorry to everyone else for replying now).


I don't recall ever thinking or stating that questioning Bush was unpatriotic and don't to this day. Do you have some evidence to the contrary?

I happen to think both our current and most recent former president are guilty of overspending and abusing executive power. So I don't quite understand your insinuation.

Well, you seemed to be making a broad generalization with your sarcastic "To imply the government is doing something unjust automatically makes you an infantile lunatic" statement, so I figured I'd make my own sarcastic broad generalization.

But I was really surprised to find this quote:


Read the thread with comprehension. The issue here is that policy is being dictated with no regard to the democratic process. The NCLB, on the other hand, was voted on in Congress and passed. It was not forced down our throats by Bush.

Sure, we can gripe about NCLB. But "we, the people" had a voice in the matter.

from the same guy who today posted this about the health care bill:


In other words, "Now that we crammed legislation down your throats that you don't want, I wish people would just quietly accept our socialist agenda."

We need to raise the rhetoric to fever pitch.

heh

Leroy Lizard
4/5/2010, 10:01 PM
You took my quote out of context. The decision as to whether states adopt national standards was made by a single individual with no regard to the democratic process. This is unlike NCLB and the health care bill (which was at least voted on).

So far, we have huge reforms in education handed down by one man with no check on his authority and a health care bill passed against the will of the people. How can you compare these to NCLB, which had widespread support when it passed?

SanJoaquinSooner
4/6/2010, 12:27 AM
In California there are four choices: the turnaround model (firing 50% of staff and experienced principals), the restart model (charter conversion), school closure, and the transformational model, which includes teachers' evaluation based, in part, on student achievement and more instructional hours. Teachers' unions choose not to allow this transformational model in many cases.

Leroy Lizard
4/6/2010, 12:35 AM
In California there are four choices: the turnaround model (firing 50% of staff and experienced principals), the restart model (charter conversion), school closure, and the transformational model, which includes teachers' evaluation based, in part, on student achievement and more instructional hours. Teachers' unions choose not to allow this transformational model in many cases.

Those are federal requirements instituted by you-know-who. States apply for school improvement funds from the national government then disperse them to schools. So school districts actually apply for grants from the state but the requirements are federal.

jkjsooner
4/6/2010, 08:44 AM
This is what pisses me off the most about Democrats. They think tax revenue is a private possession of the federal government and that we should be thankful any time they give any of it to us. It's not their money; it's OUR money!!


I agree with your criticism of using federal money to control states but strongly disagree with your assertion that this is somehow limited to Democrats. Plenty of Republicans have used this as well.

An example would be the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. While some Republicans disagreed based on constitutional issues there were plenty of social conservatives who were quick to pass the bill and it was signed by Reagan. In addition, William Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion upholding the federal government's ability to control states via federal funding.

TopDawg
4/6/2010, 09:40 AM
You took my quote out of context. The decision as to whether states adopt national standards was made by a single individual with no regard to the democratic process. This is unlike NCLB and the health care bill (which was at least voted on).

So far, we have huge reforms in education handed down by one man with no check on his authority and a health care bill passed against the will of the people. How can you compare these to NCLB, which had widespread support when it passed?

You said NCLB wasn't crammed down our throats because it was voted on in Congress.

You said the health care bill was crammed down our throats even though it was voted on in Congress.

OklahomaTuba
4/6/2010, 09:52 AM
Did Bush have to bribe numerous lawmakers and provide kickbacks to certain special interests to pass NCLB also????

Besides, NCLB was pretty "bi-partisan", unlike just about everything Obumble**** has done thus far.

TopDawg
4/6/2010, 10:24 AM
If you want to talk about the pros and cons of the two pieces of legislation, or any of the shady dealings that go on when Democrats are in office but not when Republicans are in office, go right on ahead.

I'm just talking about Leroy's hypocritical take on the passing of the two pieces of legislation.

Leroy Lizard
4/6/2010, 11:53 AM
You said NCLB wasn't crammed down our throats because it was voted on in Congress.

I said that NCLB was not crammed down our throats by BUSH, as someone else tried to claim. Democrats were involved in the creation (Miller and Kennedy) and passage of NCLB every bit as much as Republicans. It was not Bush' baby.

Leroy Lizard
4/6/2010, 11:58 AM
Did Bush have to bribe numerous lawmakers and provide kickbacks to certain special interests to pass NCLB also????

Besides, NCLB was pretty "bi-partisan", unlike just about everything Obumble**** has done thus far.

Not only was NCLB bi-partisan, it was authored by Democrat George Miller and Republican Judd Gregg and sponsored by Ted Kennedy

Crucifax Autumn
4/6/2010, 12:04 PM
Larnin's fer idjits!

TopDawg
4/6/2010, 12:11 PM
I said that NCLB was not crammed down our throats by BUSH, as someone else tried to claim. Democrats were involved in the creation (Miller and Kennedy) and passage of NCLB every bit as much as Republicans. It was not Bush' baby.

You said "The issue here is that policy is being dictated with no regard to the democratic process. The NCLB, on the other hand, was voted on in Congress and passed." Your claim was that the standards were being forced down our throats because they were being enforced through means other than the democratic process, but the NCLB was not forced down our throats because it followed the democratic process.

But then, when talking about health care, you say it was forced down our throats. Now, all of a sudden, you're saying that "forced down our throat" doesn't have anything to do with the democratic process, but it's about bi-partisan and public support.

That indicates that perhaps "democratic process" isn't actually your litmus test for whether or not something is crammed down our throat. So did you really mean to say "The issue here is that policy is being dictated with no regard to bi-partisanship and public support. The NCLB, on the other hand, was a bi-partisan effort and had public support." or would you like to take back your "crammed down our throat" view of health care?

Leroy Lizard
4/6/2010, 12:31 PM
You said "The issue here is that policy is being dictated with no regard to the democratic process. The NCLB, on the other hand, was voted on in Congress and passed." Your claim was that the standards were being forced down our throats because they were being enforced through means other than the democratic process, but the NCLB was not forced down our throats because it followed the democratic process.

Go back and read the full context. A poster tried to blame BUSH for NCLB and said HE crammed it down our throats. I pointed out that it was not Bush's bill -- that HE didn't cram it down our throats. If anything, it was Ted Kennedy's bill.

Now, if you can make a cogent argument that the health care bill was a bi-partisan effort, you would score many points in this debate. I wish you luck.

OklahomaTuba
4/6/2010, 01:51 PM
The only thing bi-partisan about ZeroCare is the opposition to it.

The fact it had to be passed in the Senate on Christmas Eve night with help of numerous kick backs, bribes, false and misleading statements, fudged accounting, loopholes, threats and flat out lies to the American people is more than enough to put this POS into the realm of "crammed down our throats".

Jello Biafra
4/6/2010, 02:25 PM
meanwhile jesse jackson has kept his man pleaser shut this whole time. you think he's washing windows to make ends meet?

TopDawg
4/6/2010, 04:34 PM
Go back and read the full context. A poster tried to blame BUSH for NCLB and said HE crammed it down our throats. I pointed out that it was not Bush's bill -- that HE didn't cram it down our throats. If anything, it was Ted Kennedy's bill.

Now, if you can make a cogent argument that the health care bill was a bi-partisan effort, you would score many points in this debate. I wish you luck.

I've wasted too many hours repeating myself to you on the football playoffs before you finally acknowledged that I was right. This isn't even that important to me, so I'll just agree to disagree with you.

It sure did SEEM to me that when you said ""The issue here is that policy is being dictated with no regard to the democratic process. The NCLB, on the other hand, was voted on in Congress and passed." that you were talking more about the democratic process than bi-partisanship...you know, since you mentioned the one and not the other. But if that's not what you meant, my bad.

Leroy Lizard
4/6/2010, 05:19 PM
I've wasted too many hours repeating myself to you on the football playoffs before you finally acknowledged that I was right.

Huh? At what time did I ever say you were right?

At what time were you ever right? That's an even better question.

TopDawg
4/6/2010, 10:35 PM
I mentioned that the playoff system I was talking about...an 8-team playoff...would have little if any negative impact on academics. You said...


Post the date, and then look at the final exam schedules. I think you will see a conflict.

Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. I have posted very detailed reasons why academics will be shortchanged. All you can respond is that you don't think it will be a big deal. You cite no evidence, whatsoever. You have no experience as a faculty member from what I can tell. College presidents don't agree with you.

So what exactly are you basing your opinions on?

I can cite you numerous instances where I argued on the behalf of academics. Can you?


Leroy, you're being ridiculous. You and I have talked about this time and time again and I've always examined the situation more deeply. You lump me in with some imaginary fanbase that you've concocted in your head that cares only about their own entertainment and cares nothing about the students. It may come as a surprise to you that I am a faculty member too and have actually taught football students in my class. I care about them. I care that they succeed academically. My job depends on it. I'm not just throwing ideas out there willy nilly. The fact that you are asking me to show you where I've considered academics just goes to prove my point that you dismiss it every time I do. If I didn't care about academics I'd say "To hell with your concerns, let's play games during finals and on into February." But I don't. I've come up with a schedule that honors finals week and the beginning of the spring semester. From a strictly competitive playoff perspective, it's not ideal. But it does the job when considering the academic needs.


Could an eight-team playoff work and preserve academics? I suppose. It's a little tougher than a four-team playoff, but it could be done.

Sure, the words "you are right" never came out of your keyboard, but you finally agreed with me.

RACHEL MADDOW is my clone
4/6/2010, 10:45 PM
NCLB WAS SIGNED BY W!!! SAYING OTHERWISE IS REVISIONIST!!!

Leroy Lizard
4/6/2010, 11:33 PM
Yes, we know Rachel. No one is saying otherwise. So just calm down a little.

Leroy Lizard
4/6/2010, 11:39 PM
I mentioned that the playoff system I was talking about...an 8-team playoff...would have little if any negative impact on academics. You said...

Was this the brilliant idea that had football games starting earlier, extending later in the season, and dropping one of the lucrative mid-season games?

My point was that even a 120-team playoff will work if you don't mind extending the season long enough. The challenge is to create the system without having players dying of heat stroke.

It's all moot anyway, because 8-team playoffs become 16-team playoffs, whether academic-minded people want it or not.

I never said you were right, as you claimed in your post.

TopDawg
4/7/2010, 10:22 AM
I never said you were right, as you claimed in your post.

If you want to get technical, I never said that you said I was right. I said that you acknowledged I was right and you did so by saying "Could an eight-team playoff work and preserve academics? I suppose. It's a little tougher than a four-team playoff, but it could be done." which was my point all along.

Again, I don't expect you to acknowledge that I'm right in this case any quicker than you did in the football playoff case, so I'll just leave it at this.

I'm more interested in the original topic of this thread anyway.