Kerry v Bush: The Facts, the Campaigns and the Spin...

I'll tell you where it didn't go, to teachers. We are having to pass bonds here in Austin just to pay our teachers a living wage.

It might have something to do with the fact that our state economy is in the toilet. Funny how we had a huge surplus before Bush became governor, and now have a huge defecit... but that's another post, isn't it?

How is it a success is 'most' of the money in your state is being spent on salaries and perks for Administrators? Isn't the money supposed to go to kids? Or at least teachers?

I suspect that NCLB is good in some states, bad in others. Just another incomplete solution to the problem.

Not to mention the fact that huge allocations of money without increasing taxes is a no-no.... we start running a deficit large enough and we get real shaky financially. Our supposed supply-side tax cuts have shown no effect in creating new jobs in the economy. Where is it going to go in the next four years but further south if we have the same leadership that has lead us this far into debt?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn

Here, Fox, read the article from this link. They did their homework.
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0305mat.htm

I've done my homework C.I. and I see what's happening in my own state and I listen to those who are actually in the business of educating children.

Funding is funding. If the states/school districts receive additional funding ANYWHERE, it is only logical funding is freed up to put ANYWHERE. If the states and schools used the federal money without allocating sufficient funds to No Child Left Behind they have no justification for whining about it.

So now it's the state's fault.

Right. Keep shifting the blame off of those who wrote a crappy bill in the first place.

Let me ask you again, Fox: how does it help to have the majority of funding go to perks and salaries for administrators in your state? How does this help the kids?

Cycloptichorn

Okay Cyclop, give me your rationale how a unsurpassed increase in education funding--billions and billions in increased funding over any previous adminsitration--education funding that surpasses the defense budget--is Bush's fault that the schools are underfunded for NCLA?

Should they rescind NCLA (which is doing a lot of good) and also the funding? Would that make you happy?

It's NCLB. Not NCLA. Right? I guess I've heard it called both.

You dodged my question, Fox. AGAIN. How does it help THE KIDS to give raises to administrators?

CAN you answer this question?

And my answer to YOUR question (see, some of us actually answer the opponent's questions; you are one of the worst about this, yaknow) would be that throwing money at a problem without an adequate support system beneath it never helped anything, and you know it. This is nothing but throwing money at a problem.

Your OWN statement that it's the Admins in your state who are profiting from this only backs up my claim.

Which is why you can't answer my question, I have no doubt.

Cycloptichorn

It DOESN"T help kids to give raises to adminsitrators Cyclop....that was my point. If the schools use the federal funding for other than NCLB, then they can't whine that NCLB is underfunded. The guidelines for NCLB are very clearly laid out, and the administration greatly increased federal funding to education. Try to keep up here, okay.

I'm having a really hard time swallowing this one.

Fox,

You are once again proving my point for me. The federal government's NCLB program doesn't actually help the kids, because it really does nothing more than throw money at the problem, and doesn't even stipulate how it is spent.

You say to blame the states, not the program. But the states shouldn't have had the choice to spend it on Admin salaries!!!@!!!!!! This is what we call a POORLY DESIGNED program! It's no wonder it's not working nationally.

You can't have it both ways, Fox...

Cycloptichorn

Check it out FreeDuck. I don't have the exact numbers in front of me, but I'm pretty sure I'm on solid ground with that one.

I did misstate something up there though. The administration cannot allocate money nor issue any kind of mandate to the states--both are functions of Congress and that applies to NCLB too. George Bush was definitely the catalyst behind the initiative however--it was his plan and Congress implemented it.

Cyclop, please spell out exactly what you think the Federal government should do besides:
1. Put the mandate for NCLB out there. Be specific as to what points of NCLB are bad and how it harms children.

2. Increase education allocations to the states.

I would be interested in what you think the Federal Government should do to improve education other than insist that the schools apply real measurable standards to what the kids are taught and determination of what the kids are learning.

If the funding had been thrown out there without a plan, I would agree its throwing money at a problem. When it is put out there to support the schools along with a very comprehensive plan to improve education which NCLB is, you can't say it is just throwing money at the problem and you can't say it isn't funded.

How about YOU being a bit objective and fair here?

If some schools obviously need much more money, and others are returning it b/c they were given too much, then there is obviously a problem with the way the money is appropriated to schools in the first place.

It's not that I think the goals of NCLB are bad; the heart is in the right place on this one. I just think that we need to have stricter standards re: what the money is spent on (federal guidelines?) and to whom it is sent in the first place.

I also think that complete funding has to come through not only to improving test scores, but to improving the quality of education. I don't believe they are the same thing, at all. Teachers are accused all the time of 'teaching for the tests,' and NCLB only heightens this.

I believe the problems with our public schools system don't need to be fixed by using vouchers (a program I am solidly against), and in many ways NCLB is a way to introduce vouchers and charter schools on the back-end instead of presenting it that way up front.

Has all the promised money for the NCLB been delivered? I know it was allocated, but allocated and delivered are two very different things for this Admin, who has a history of not delivering monetary allocations (at least not in a timely fashion).

Cycloptichorn

Look at this Cyclop.
http://edworkforce.house.gov/press/press108/second/06june/unspent062904.htm

Why isn't this money being spent on teachers' salaries? My guess is that it is not eligible to be done that way... do you know?

Cycloptichorn

There is nothing wrong with teaching to the test assuming the test is about being able to read, write, and do arithmatic...

Yeah there is!

We don't just want kids to learn how to answer the specific questions of the test, we want them to learn the concepts. There is significant evidence (and I can remember it for my own self) that teachers are teaching exactly what is needed for the test, and that's it.

Cycloptichorn

Doesn't matter. As I posted previously, funding is funding (though the article does specifically say NCLB funding.) If the funding it targeted for something specific, that frees up funding already allocated to whatever that is and it could be diverted to whatever has been underfunded. The point is, it is not the lack of money that is hamstringing the schools.

I suggest that we look to greedy administrators, inept school board members, the ultra liberal unions who will not let many useful policies go into effect (such as firing incompetent teachers), social promotions, social engineering.

"Teaching to the test" is not a bad thing. There is nothing wrong in deciding what the kids should know and be conscientious in being sure they know it. I think just like the medical or bar exams though, the teachers should not know the specific way the questions will be worded so they will be sure the kids actually know the subject instead of a memorized answer. I believe that is the way it is done.

When a teacher complains about 'teaching for the test' it only means they are having to teach real subjects instead of stuff that the teacher might find more fun. The really good teachers admit this. The ones who are just drawing a paycheck won't.

If kids are graduating high school without the ability to comprehend what they are reqading, or can't even read, then that's what I want their teachers to teach them. Understanding economics, history, biology do not matter to those that cannot read. NCLB is not aimed at the suburban scholls that graduate 90% of their students, it's aimed at the inner city schools where the drop out percentage is much greater. It's suppose to allow those schools a chance to redeeem themselves or close up shop. If the schools are failing to teach our children then something needs to be done!

Couldn't this problem be avoided by using tests where the teachers don't know the specific questions of the test? I would imagine that when teaching to a test you can't predict, teaching the concepts should beat mindless memorizing hands down.


How does that compare with the things teachers teach in the absence of testing? And how does one tell the difference without testing of some kind?

I'm not advocating a complete removal of testing. I do believe that standardized testing is important.

But what I believe we have created here is a situation where, to the school, the standardized test becomes the ONLY important factor. To pass the NCLB goals, many of these schools have to focus on getting kids ready for the tests year-round. Whether or not this is an indication of the lack of quality of the school or not, it isn't going to help the problem.

Shutting down inner-city schools b/c they don't meet the goals is going to help the problem... how?

Cycloptichorn