New study printed in today's online edition of the guardian:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1719123,00.html)
While I won't, and cannot post the article verbatim herein this blog, a new study by academics at University College London (UCL) and Kings College London has given statistical backing for my claims. Follow the hyperlink above to read the article.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Friday, February 24, 2006
Every Child Left Behind? Part 3
To conclude our analysis of the No Child Left Behind program, we'll take a look at how the program is fundamentally flawed, even if it were properly funded. But first, we'll look at how the education system works here in the US of A. Traditionally, education funding starts at the state not the Federal level, and monies collected from city ordinances are used to build new schools, and make sure they're running par excellence. (This is, of course, the system in a nut shell) The Federal Government, traditionally, has little involvement with the education system.
So why is the Federal Government getting involved now?
As we discussed earlier, our schools are in pretty bad shape as a nation. And this is where NCLB comes in, brought to you by Rod Paige, the same man whom masterminded the Huston Miracle! As you can see, we're already off to such a wonderful start. We've already discussed the "plan" from the Federal Government, but here it is, again in a nut shell - Standardized National testing (the multiple choice type); those schools who perform the best get the most moo-la from the Federal Government.
Good! Doesn't that just hold the districts accountable?
Before we get to "who's accountable", first we need to see if this test thing is really the best means to achieve this. First, for most white collar jobs, the most important job skill you can have is the ability to communicate, either orally or written, your ideas succinctly and clearly. Remember all of those book reports and ten page essays-with-oral-presentations you had to do in high school? You can thank your teachers later. Remember our earlier statistic- that 60%-70% of high school graduates cannot think or read critically? NCLB does nothing to improve communication skills. The only thing a standardized test can determine is how well you can regurgitate factual information. (I do understand the importance of association, however) Our next generation will be released into the toughest job market the US has ever seen- not just competing with their neighbor for a good paying job, but the whole world, without proper communication skills.
So what can we do?
First we have to get to the root of the problem. I understand that there are some really bad teachers out there; however, how can a teacher teach a class when the students just wont behave? And if the teacher should try to take corrective action towards the unruly brat- Law suite! It looks like the root lies with the parents and trickles upwards into the hollowed halls of institutions of education. In my AFA post, I outlined some things parents can do to teach their children healthy study habits, but do the parents really have the time? Gone are the days when one parent can afford to stay home with the rug-rats and engaged in active parenting. We've exported a high majority of our higher paying manufacturing jobs over-seas, and there is so much competition for the jobs that are left, that it is causing heavy deflationary pressures on wadges. The job that payed $20.00 an hour twenty years ago now only pays $10.00 (salary adjusted in today's dollars). GDP (how much we produced inside the US) was at 1.3% for 2005, down from its average of 3.5% annual gain, (GDP hasn't been this low since depression times) while CPI (inflation) rose 3.4% in 2005. http://www.bls.gov/
What the heck does that mean?
That means the average price of goods has risen more than what we made (GDP is in $'s) domestically last year. Combine that with a high influx of illegal immigrants pushing wadges down, and it puts an ever increasing strain on the median family income. Parents to day, to survive, have to work more hours to generate the same amount of income they did a generation ago.
So with the parents unable to parent, who can we hold accountable? For now, I will only suggest that we need to reconsider our current structure of "corporate anarchy". Isn't it time we start pulling in the reigns, and incenting business to stay here in the united states?
Cody Hobbs
So why is the Federal Government getting involved now?
As we discussed earlier, our schools are in pretty bad shape as a nation. And this is where NCLB comes in, brought to you by Rod Paige, the same man whom masterminded the Huston Miracle! As you can see, we're already off to such a wonderful start. We've already discussed the "plan" from the Federal Government, but here it is, again in a nut shell - Standardized National testing (the multiple choice type); those schools who perform the best get the most moo-la from the Federal Government.
Good! Doesn't that just hold the districts accountable?
Before we get to "who's accountable", first we need to see if this test thing is really the best means to achieve this. First, for most white collar jobs, the most important job skill you can have is the ability to communicate, either orally or written, your ideas succinctly and clearly. Remember all of those book reports and ten page essays-with-oral-presentations you had to do in high school? You can thank your teachers later. Remember our earlier statistic- that 60%-70% of high school graduates cannot think or read critically? NCLB does nothing to improve communication skills. The only thing a standardized test can determine is how well you can regurgitate factual information. (I do understand the importance of association, however) Our next generation will be released into the toughest job market the US has ever seen- not just competing with their neighbor for a good paying job, but the whole world, without proper communication skills.
So what can we do?
First we have to get to the root of the problem. I understand that there are some really bad teachers out there; however, how can a teacher teach a class when the students just wont behave? And if the teacher should try to take corrective action towards the unruly brat- Law suite! It looks like the root lies with the parents and trickles upwards into the hollowed halls of institutions of education. In my AFA post, I outlined some things parents can do to teach their children healthy study habits, but do the parents really have the time? Gone are the days when one parent can afford to stay home with the rug-rats and engaged in active parenting. We've exported a high majority of our higher paying manufacturing jobs over-seas, and there is so much competition for the jobs that are left, that it is causing heavy deflationary pressures on wadges. The job that payed $20.00 an hour twenty years ago now only pays $10.00 (salary adjusted in today's dollars). GDP (how much we produced inside the US) was at 1.3% for 2005, down from its average of 3.5% annual gain, (GDP hasn't been this low since depression times) while CPI (inflation) rose 3.4% in 2005. http://www.bls.gov/
What the heck does that mean?
That means the average price of goods has risen more than what we made (GDP is in $'s) domestically last year. Combine that with a high influx of illegal immigrants pushing wadges down, and it puts an ever increasing strain on the median family income. Parents to day, to survive, have to work more hours to generate the same amount of income they did a generation ago.
So with the parents unable to parent, who can we hold accountable? For now, I will only suggest that we need to reconsider our current structure of "corporate anarchy". Isn't it time we start pulling in the reigns, and incenting business to stay here in the united states?
Cody Hobbs
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Everey Child Left Behind? Part 2
So now that we have taken a look into where No Child Left Behind has come from, lets examine the effects of underfunding the program.
In 2004, here was how much each state did not receive:
(Yes, this is a long list, bear with me for a minute)
Alabama did not get $147 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $90 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $11 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.
Alaska did not get $37 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $19 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Arizona did not get $182 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $104 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $13 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.
Arkansas did not get $84 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $52 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $7 million for critical after-school programs, and $3 million to raise teacher quality.
California did not get $1.3 billion in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $898 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $103 million for critical after-school programs, and $47 million to raise teacher quality.
Colorado did not get $96 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $54 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $7 million for critical after-school programs, and $4 million to raise teacher quality.
Connecticut did not get $80 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $47 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $6 million for critical after-school programs, and $3 million to raise teacher quality.
District of Columbia did not get $44 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $28 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Delaware did not get $32 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $19 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Florida did not get $500 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $313 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $35 million for critical after-school programs, and $17 million to raise teacher quality.
Georgia did not get $283 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $180 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $22 million for critical after-school programs, and $10 million to raise teacher quality.
Hawaii did not get $47 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $22 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Idaho did not get $38 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $22 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Illinois did not get $409 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $265 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $31 million for critical after-school programs, and $13 million to raise teacher quality.
Indiana did not get $131 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $80 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $10 million for critical after-school programs, and $5 million to raise teacher quality.
Iowa did not get $51 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $29 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Kansas did not get $66 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $39 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $5 million for critical after-school programs, and $3 million to raise teacher quality.
Kentucky did not get $123 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $81 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $10 million for critical after-school programs, and $5 million to raise teacher quality.
Louisiana did not get $200 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $137 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $16 million for critical after-school programs, and $8 million to raise teacher quality.
Maine did not get $24 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $24 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Maryland did not get $161 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $83 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $10 million for critical after-school programs, and $5 million to raise teacher quality.
Massachusetts did not get $171 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $110 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $13 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.
Michigan did not get $299 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $197 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $23 million for critical after-school programs, and $10 million to raise teacher quality.
Minnesota did not get $91 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $49 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $6 million for critical after-school programs, and $4 million to raise teacher quality.
Mississippi did not get $116 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $75 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $9 million for critical after-school programs, and $5 million to raise teacher quality.
Missouri did not get $140 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $87 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $11 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.
Montana did not get $38 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $21 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Nebraska did not get $43 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $24 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Nevada did not get $61 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $33 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
New Hampshire did not get $31 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $17 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
New Jersey did not get $209 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $122 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $15 million for critical after-school programs, and $7 million to raise teacher quality.
New Mexico did not get $98 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $57 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $7 million for critical after-school programs, and $3 million to raise teacher quality.
New York did not get $966 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $664 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $73 million for critical after-school programs, and $24 million to raise teacher quality.
North Carolina did not get $230 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $137 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $17 million for critical after-school programs, and $9 million to raise teacher quality.
North Dakota did not get $17 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $17 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Ohio did not get $310 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $196 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $23 million for critical after-school programs, and $12 million to raise teacher quality.
Oklahoma did not get $129 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $64 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $8 million for critical after-school programs, and $4 million to raise teacher quality.
Oregon did not get $98 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $62 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $8 million for critical after-school programs, and $3 million to raise teacher quality.
Pennsylvania did not get $337 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $217 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $25 million for critical after-school programs, and $12 million to raise teacher quality..
Rhode Island did not get $23 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $23 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
South Carolina did not get $80 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $81 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $10 million for critical after-school programs, and $5 million to raise teacher quality.
South Dakota did not get $34 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $21 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Tennessee did not get $160 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $97 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $12 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.
Texas did not get $843 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $548 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $66 million for critical after-school programs, and $30 million to raise teacher quality.
Utah did not get $53 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $24 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Vermont did not get $27 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $16 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Virginia did not get $195 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $88 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $12 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.
Washington did not get $147 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $79 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $10 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.
West Virginia did not get $66 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $46 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $6 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Wisconsin did not get $128 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $78 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $9 million for critical after-school programs, and $5 million to raise teacher quality.
Wyoming did not get $31 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $17 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
(source taken from http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/brokenpromisesreport.html)
The newly proposed budget plan from 2005 would cut an estimated $3.4 billion MORE from federal education funding for the next year.
But we need that money to slay the terrorist!
Okay...
However, with out the appropriate funds, the only thing the standardized testing is doing is reaffirming the idea that our schools are in some deep doo-doo. So by cutting the funding, were just re-stating the initial problem this was suppose to fix, but cutting out the solution. (I'll discuss next post on the problem of simply throwing money at a problem to fix it- but for now, well assume that money will magically fix the problem)
Bravo guys! Way to stick it to our youngsters! Next post, on 2-18-06 will dig deeper into the fundamental flaws of NCLB, even if it were being properly funded.
Cody Hobbs
In 2004, here was how much each state did not receive:
(Yes, this is a long list, bear with me for a minute)
Alabama did not get $147 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $90 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $11 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.
Alaska did not get $37 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $19 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Arizona did not get $182 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $104 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $13 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.
Arkansas did not get $84 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $52 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $7 million for critical after-school programs, and $3 million to raise teacher quality.
California did not get $1.3 billion in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $898 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $103 million for critical after-school programs, and $47 million to raise teacher quality.
Colorado did not get $96 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $54 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $7 million for critical after-school programs, and $4 million to raise teacher quality.
Connecticut did not get $80 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $47 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $6 million for critical after-school programs, and $3 million to raise teacher quality.
District of Columbia did not get $44 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $28 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Delaware did not get $32 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $19 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Florida did not get $500 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $313 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $35 million for critical after-school programs, and $17 million to raise teacher quality.
Georgia did not get $283 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $180 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $22 million for critical after-school programs, and $10 million to raise teacher quality.
Hawaii did not get $47 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $22 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Idaho did not get $38 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $22 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Illinois did not get $409 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $265 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $31 million for critical after-school programs, and $13 million to raise teacher quality.
Indiana did not get $131 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $80 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $10 million for critical after-school programs, and $5 million to raise teacher quality.
Iowa did not get $51 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $29 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Kansas did not get $66 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $39 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $5 million for critical after-school programs, and $3 million to raise teacher quality.
Kentucky did not get $123 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $81 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $10 million for critical after-school programs, and $5 million to raise teacher quality.
Louisiana did not get $200 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $137 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $16 million for critical after-school programs, and $8 million to raise teacher quality.
Maine did not get $24 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $24 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Maryland did not get $161 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $83 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $10 million for critical after-school programs, and $5 million to raise teacher quality.
Massachusetts did not get $171 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $110 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $13 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.
Michigan did not get $299 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $197 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $23 million for critical after-school programs, and $10 million to raise teacher quality.
Minnesota did not get $91 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $49 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $6 million for critical after-school programs, and $4 million to raise teacher quality.
Mississippi did not get $116 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $75 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $9 million for critical after-school programs, and $5 million to raise teacher quality.
Missouri did not get $140 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $87 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $11 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.
Montana did not get $38 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $21 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Nebraska did not get $43 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $24 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Nevada did not get $61 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $33 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
New Hampshire did not get $31 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $17 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
New Jersey did not get $209 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $122 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $15 million for critical after-school programs, and $7 million to raise teacher quality.
New Mexico did not get $98 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $57 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $7 million for critical after-school programs, and $3 million to raise teacher quality.
New York did not get $966 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $664 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $73 million for critical after-school programs, and $24 million to raise teacher quality.
North Carolina did not get $230 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $137 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $17 million for critical after-school programs, and $9 million to raise teacher quality.
North Dakota did not get $17 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $17 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Ohio did not get $310 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $196 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $23 million for critical after-school programs, and $12 million to raise teacher quality.
Oklahoma did not get $129 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $64 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $8 million for critical after-school programs, and $4 million to raise teacher quality.
Oregon did not get $98 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $62 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $8 million for critical after-school programs, and $3 million to raise teacher quality.
Pennsylvania did not get $337 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $217 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $25 million for critical after-school programs, and $12 million to raise teacher quality..
Rhode Island did not get $23 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $23 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
South Carolina did not get $80 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $81 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $10 million for critical after-school programs, and $5 million to raise teacher quality.
South Dakota did not get $34 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $21 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Tennessee did not get $160 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $97 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $12 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.
Texas did not get $843 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $548 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $66 million for critical after-school programs, and $30 million to raise teacher quality.
Utah did not get $53 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $24 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Vermont did not get $27 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $16 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Virginia did not get $195 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $88 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $12 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.
Washington did not get $147 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $79 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $10 million for critical after-school programs, and $6 million to raise teacher quality.
West Virginia did not get $66 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $46 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $6 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
Wisconsin did not get $128 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $78 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $9 million for critical after-school programs, and $5 million to raise teacher quality.
Wyoming did not get $31 million in public school funding last year promised by Congress and the President, including $17 million for extra academic support for low-income students, $4 million for critical after-school programs, and $2 million to raise teacher quality.
(source taken from http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/brokenpromisesreport.html)
The newly proposed budget plan from 2005 would cut an estimated $3.4 billion MORE from federal education funding for the next year.
But we need that money to slay the terrorist!
Okay...
However, with out the appropriate funds, the only thing the standardized testing is doing is reaffirming the idea that our schools are in some deep doo-doo. So by cutting the funding, were just re-stating the initial problem this was suppose to fix, but cutting out the solution. (I'll discuss next post on the problem of simply throwing money at a problem to fix it- but for now, well assume that money will magically fix the problem)
Bravo guys! Way to stick it to our youngsters! Next post, on 2-18-06 will dig deeper into the fundamental flaws of NCLB, even if it were being properly funded.
Cody Hobbs
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Everey Child Left Behind?
It's a pretty much agreed on fact that U.S. schools ain't that great. (K-12) From our falling scores in Math and science compared to other industrialized nations, to a new survey that reports between 60-70% of high school graduates cannot think critically, it's clear that something needs to be done. So enter our hero, G.W. Bush and the infamous No Child left Behind act. With schools providing yearly testing to compete for federal aid, (the higher a school's average score, the more federal money they receive*) we can once again sleep soundly that our youth is gettn' themselves some educationism! But then we pinch ourselves, and sadly watch as this colorful fantasy melts away before our very eyes.
So what's the deal behind No child left behind? Is this the long awaited miracle that's going to save our children, or is this creating a worse problem then we have now? Because of the extensive amount of information on NCLB, we will split this story into three segments, the first going back to where it all began, with a little thing called the "Huston Miracle"
The Huston Miracle - The U.S. hasn't sold it yet!
In many ways, Huston represented the core of our nations education problems. The drop-out rate was at 67%, most who did make it never went to college; to put it simply you might have asked: what Huston education system? But, while G.W. was still Governor of Texas, along came along one Mr. Rod Paige, the man who was then in charge of the Huston school district. He worked day and night with Governor Bush to find a solution to their education malices. Then, on a cold December night, while sipping a cup of warm hot chocolate, the answer appeared! The idea was to introduce a standardized test (the multiple choice kind, where you pick A, B, C or D) for the whole district, and based on the scores, schools would receive an extra incentive for their hard work! The teachers of the schools who could lower the drop-out rate, and provide top scores would receive a pay raise! This revolutionary idea worked so well, that within ONE YEAR the drop out rate for Huston proper dropped to under 19%! It seemed standardized testing was the answer!
But could this have been to good to be true? First, under the new provisions provided, in order for a student to be considered as a "drop-out" it had to have occurred in their senior year. Moreover, teachers were encouraged to "hold kids back" who they didn't think would make the grade. If after four years of being held back and the student chose to leave school, they were considered to have simply "been transferred". (Students who were held back in their freshmen, sophomore or junior year weren't allowed to take the test.) Could the Huston miracle just been the result of some fuzzy math? If so, then their is no way Rod Paige would have been allowed to keep his job, much less ever achieve a higher position in the government.
But wait, that same Mr. Rod Paige is now U.S. Secretary of Education, appointed by a now President G.W. Bush due to his excellent efforts in Huston. He is also one of the masterminds behind our current federal No child left behind act!
So, to conclude Part One of our No Child Left behind inquiry, I will leave you with a question: can we trust a program that has such seedy roots? Part Two will look at the underfunding of the program on 02-16-2006.
Cody Hobbs
*So schools that really need the funding are getting less money!
Sorce provided from CNN documentery: No Child Left Behind
So what's the deal behind No child left behind? Is this the long awaited miracle that's going to save our children, or is this creating a worse problem then we have now? Because of the extensive amount of information on NCLB, we will split this story into three segments, the first going back to where it all began, with a little thing called the "Huston Miracle"
The Huston Miracle - The U.S. hasn't sold it yet!
In many ways, Huston represented the core of our nations education problems. The drop-out rate was at 67%, most who did make it never went to college; to put it simply you might have asked: what Huston education system? But, while G.W. was still Governor of Texas, along came along one Mr. Rod Paige, the man who was then in charge of the Huston school district. He worked day and night with Governor Bush to find a solution to their education malices. Then, on a cold December night, while sipping a cup of warm hot chocolate, the answer appeared! The idea was to introduce a standardized test (the multiple choice kind, where you pick A, B, C or D) for the whole district, and based on the scores, schools would receive an extra incentive for their hard work! The teachers of the schools who could lower the drop-out rate, and provide top scores would receive a pay raise! This revolutionary idea worked so well, that within ONE YEAR the drop out rate for Huston proper dropped to under 19%! It seemed standardized testing was the answer!
But could this have been to good to be true? First, under the new provisions provided, in order for a student to be considered as a "drop-out" it had to have occurred in their senior year. Moreover, teachers were encouraged to "hold kids back" who they didn't think would make the grade. If after four years of being held back and the student chose to leave school, they were considered to have simply "been transferred". (Students who were held back in their freshmen, sophomore or junior year weren't allowed to take the test.) Could the Huston miracle just been the result of some fuzzy math? If so, then their is no way Rod Paige would have been allowed to keep his job, much less ever achieve a higher position in the government.
But wait, that same Mr. Rod Paige is now U.S. Secretary of Education, appointed by a now President G.W. Bush due to his excellent efforts in Huston. He is also one of the masterminds behind our current federal No child left behind act!
So, to conclude Part One of our No Child Left behind inquiry, I will leave you with a question: can we trust a program that has such seedy roots? Part Two will look at the underfunding of the program on 02-16-2006.
Cody Hobbs
*So schools that really need the funding are getting less money!
Sorce provided from CNN documentery: No Child Left Behind
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Criminal in Chief
With senate Judiciary hearings starting on the "wire tapping" incident, I feel that it is appropriate to define exactly where (I think) Bush has quite-in-fact broke the law. There has been much ambiguity spread by the major news networks, and, indeed, ambiguity spread by Senators and congressmen, too, as to what criminal acts have been committed.
This is just like Nixon / Liberals always pull the "Nixon" card
But is this like Nixon? Does The Commander-in-chief have the authority to wire-tap its own citizens to preserve National security? The answer is unequivocally, yes; however, not unconditionally so. So what does that mean? In simple language: The President, based on the powers vested to him by the Constitution, and defined by the provisions of FISA, may eavesdrop on its own citizens providing certain criteria, or conditions, if you will, have been met. *
So no law was broken then, right?
The supreme court has ruled, concerning gathering intelligence using wire tapping methods, that: if "neither a warrant nor a statute authorizing eavesdropping can be drawn so as to meet the Fourth Amendment's requirements . . . then the Fruits' of eavesdropping devices are barred under the Amendment." So we are given herein two conditions under-which the Executive branch must act.
1. It must meet 4th Amendment requirements, and
2. The Executive branch *must obtain a warrant*
It is on this second point that the legality of the NSA's wiretapping has been contested. As outlined by FISA, the Executive branch (President Bush; Attorney General Alberto Gonzales both fall under the Executive branch) has 72hrs. to obtain a warrant after begging the wiretapping.
So, then isn't getting a warrant just a ritualized gesture?
To some degree it is. However, the purpose for this "ritual" is to keep the Executive in check. With-out a warrant, we are saying "I blindly trust your discretion". Has President Bush given us reason to trust him unconditionally? Has he been honest in all of his affairs? These questions, only you can answer for yourself.
But wait! President Bush said that if we had been keeping track of terrorist activity prior to 9/11, we could have prevented the attacks on the WTC. Shouldn't we then be applauding him for his efforts?
And I'm so glad you asked. To make the claim that criminal wiretapping is what was needed to prevent the 9/11 attacks is GROSSLY MISLEADING. I cannot emphasize this enough. In 1999 a special operations Command military intelligence program was created. The program was named "Able Danger". Hearings before the Senate Judiciary committee has asserted that "Able Danger had identified the September 11, 2001 attack leader Mohamed Atta, and three of the 9/11 plot's 19 hijackers, as possible members of an Al Qaeda cell linked to the '93 World Trade Center Attacks." This contradicts the original finding of the 9/11 Commission that intelligence agencies had not identified the attackers prior to 9/11.
:-\
This means that:
WE HAD THE INTELEGENCE!! However, because of laws passed concerning agencies ability to communicate with one another, we were never able to put the pieces of the puzzle together. What was needed to prevent the 9/11 attacks was not illegal wiretapping; rather, a repaired intelligence agency is what was needed. The President broke the law, very clearly, by issuing an order allowing the NSA to conduct electronic surveillance without ANY warrant. We must demand that accountability is restored to our government.
* Under FISA (and this is where more ambiguity arises) it is legal to use electronic surveillance to spy on a foreign entity without a warrant.
Cody Hobbs
This is just like Nixon / Liberals always pull the "Nixon" card
But is this like Nixon? Does The Commander-in-chief have the authority to wire-tap its own citizens to preserve National security? The answer is unequivocally, yes; however, not unconditionally so. So what does that mean? In simple language: The President, based on the powers vested to him by the Constitution, and defined by the provisions of FISA, may eavesdrop on its own citizens providing certain criteria, or conditions, if you will, have been met. *
So no law was broken then, right?
The supreme court has ruled, concerning gathering intelligence using wire tapping methods, that: if "neither a warrant nor a statute authorizing eavesdropping can be drawn so as to meet the Fourth Amendment's requirements . . . then the Fruits' of eavesdropping devices are barred under the Amendment." So we are given herein two conditions under-which the Executive branch must act.
1. It must meet 4th Amendment requirements, and
2. The Executive branch *must obtain a warrant*
It is on this second point that the legality of the NSA's wiretapping has been contested. As outlined by FISA, the Executive branch (President Bush; Attorney General Alberto Gonzales both fall under the Executive branch) has 72hrs. to obtain a warrant after begging the wiretapping.
So, then isn't getting a warrant just a ritualized gesture?
To some degree it is. However, the purpose for this "ritual" is to keep the Executive in check. With-out a warrant, we are saying "I blindly trust your discretion". Has President Bush given us reason to trust him unconditionally? Has he been honest in all of his affairs? These questions, only you can answer for yourself.
But wait! President Bush said that if we had been keeping track of terrorist activity prior to 9/11, we could have prevented the attacks on the WTC. Shouldn't we then be applauding him for his efforts?
And I'm so glad you asked. To make the claim that criminal wiretapping is what was needed to prevent the 9/11 attacks is GROSSLY MISLEADING. I cannot emphasize this enough. In 1999 a special operations Command military intelligence program was created. The program was named "Able Danger". Hearings before the Senate Judiciary committee has asserted that "Able Danger had identified the September 11, 2001 attack leader Mohamed Atta, and three of the 9/11 plot's 19 hijackers, as possible members of an Al Qaeda cell linked to the '93 World Trade Center Attacks." This contradicts the original finding of the 9/11 Commission that intelligence agencies had not identified the attackers prior to 9/11.
:-\
This means that:
WE HAD THE INTELEGENCE!! However, because of laws passed concerning agencies ability to communicate with one another, we were never able to put the pieces of the puzzle together. What was needed to prevent the 9/11 attacks was not illegal wiretapping; rather, a repaired intelligence agency is what was needed. The President broke the law, very clearly, by issuing an order allowing the NSA to conduct electronic surveillance without ANY warrant. We must demand that accountability is restored to our government.
* Under FISA (and this is where more ambiguity arises) it is legal to use electronic surveillance to spy on a foreign entity without a warrant.
Cody Hobbs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)