« and then the rest of the day.... | Main | analyze this. I dare you. »

I thought I was done

I thought I was done...

And you know, one more thing. It's bugging the shit out of me that Bush is calling the new Education plan the "No Child Left Behind Act." Because if he is going to have the progress of students based on standardized test scores, then my daughter, along with a lot of other kids, will surely be left behind. And the way to lift up sagging schools is not to give parents the option of moving their kids to a different school. What you're left with then is a bunch of kids who are probably failing and have a crappy home life to boot. What happens to them as they are left in a failing school, with other failing kids with no other option? And isn't there something wrong in our country when the rich neighborhoods have great schools and for the most part poor neighborhoods have poor schools? Shouldn't a good education be provided to everyone? Why the disparity? Shouldn't we be looking at ways to get more funding into the poorer districts rather than throwing more tests at everyone? And you know what the bottom line in all this is? If parents don't get involved in their child's education than they (1) have no right to complain about it and (2) will ensure that their kids fail.

Now, I'm done.

Comments

Remember, the appearance of "helping the children" is far more important than actually doing anything constructive...

I agree, in politics, appearance is 99% of the game!

It's the problems in schools now, such as standardized testing, that has caused me to home school my children. I have a daughter with mental and physical disabilities, and she did not do well at all in public classrooms, where she was supposed to recieve one-on-one attention, and never did.

Funny thing is, is that my other "normal" children, do much better home-schooled as well.

And isn't there something wrong in our country when the rich neighborhoods have great schools and for the most part poor neighborhoods have poor schools?

It's all about money. Schools are funded with property taxes. Rich neighborhoods=more expensive properties and people willing and able to pay for good schools. Poor neighborhoods are filled mainly with parents who have more kids than they can afford, and don't give a shit about what kind of school system they have. I don't think that will ever change.

That poor neighborhoods=poor schools thing won't change until the way schools are funded changes. The sorry state of American schools is the main reason I left the country.

That's what I'm saying. Funding schools with property taxes is what causes the disparity between school districts. Until our government finds another way to fund schooling, the message is clear. Your education is only as good as your dollars. Maybe this nation would have less poor people if we only gave those in poorer neighborhoods a chance at a better education. How can we expect people to break the cycle of poverty if they aren't given a chance to better themselves with the same education that people who live just miles away from them are getting?

nah, see you misunderstood dubya again michele - u gotta listen closer. the name of the program is "no rich white kids left behind"

cos we had enough of rich white leftie kid butts during the clinton years.

The property tax issue is a red herring. There is a very strong corrolation between quality of family life and academic achievement. The rich white kid is more likely to have two parents in the house who actually "parent." Low income families are much more likely to be single parent households - not that a single parent can't do a damn good job, but statistically speaking, two parents greatly increases the odds in the kids favor.

That said, I've known plenty of drug addicted wastiods from high income, stable, two parent households.

Yeah, I agree . . .I'm about as socially liberal as anyone. But there is some cultural attitude I just can't comprehend among many poor people (including relatives of mine) that is like, "we're really poor, we live in the barrio, hey! lets have another kid or two we don't really care about!" I just don't get it . . .

It's a vicious cycle, Charles. Maybe if they had a shot at a better education, they wouldn't be throwing their lives away like that. But when you got to school every day to a run down building with not nearly enough classrooms or textbooks and your education is half what they people in the next town are getting, you end up living in a world of hopelessness.

Well, Bush's original proposal called for just what you're asking for - vouchers so that kids in failing schools could go elsewhere. The teachers' unions wouldn't have it, so the Democrats stripped that part out. The result is a compromise bill that will probably do no actual, real-world good but which will allow Bush and Tom Daschle to say they've done something about it.

It isn't really all about money. Money's important, but how it's spent is more so. We've massively increased the amount of money we devote to schools in the last 30 years, even as their quality declined. But it's being eaten up by non-educative staff: We now have 40% more administrators, rather than better teacher pay, infrastructure, or materials.

This bill won't change any of that - but actual competition between schools can. But the teachers' unions spend a lot of teachers' dues money making sure that won't happen.