Quote:
Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
On the substantive issue of how to educate kids, I think Bush has generally prevailed and the rote and test methods are now prevalent. I may disagree, but I don't think the public does. The public as a whole expects this approach to work.
I think there are two problems. Bush made commitments he didn't keep. Section 2 of the Bill lays out the steadily increasing funding amounts - and you may sneeze at a $25 billion commitment for last year, but it's the commitment that was very publicly made.
The second problem is marginal results.
See Here. . If you compare these to the impact of the federal program most derided by many Rs, Head Start, NCLB doesn't look so hot. Is the modest impact related to the program itself or the lack of funding? I don't think that's a question the Rs want to deal with in a campaign season.
|
Oops. I have a few more minutes than I thought. I understand that the rote and test method does not deliver excellence from the top third of students. However, it does ensure that the bottom third keep up, and I think that's the goal of NCLB. Localities are free to fund the excellence at the top, too.
But I think that, in terms of overall societal health, as a fed mandate, we're better off making sure we're not completely failing that bottom third. And, I think we were, prior to NCLB.
I, like you, think that rote and test is a waste for the kids who, like us, went to law school and argue about which fun lux car to buy, but it's the only hope for the kids with the cracked parents and the lousy (but PC) teacher in inner Detroit or Chicago or Nashville or . . .)
