Where is the US economy headed?

Yes, it is true that many voted for it because bush persuaded Teddy Kennedy to back it, promising funding and bi-partisan support. Kennedy later withdrew his support and criticized the measure.

You are talking about an 8-year time frame. Furthermore, the production of the tests -- nothing else -- probably has a lot to do with the money spent.

There are many things hawk seems to miss; standardized tests have many negatives to them, because teachers are graded on how well their students do to so-called standardized tests that are different for most states. There is no such thing as a "standard." Lower standards allow schools to get more funding, because they will met the so-called standards established that doesn't prove students are learning more or better. It has also been revealed that many teachers cheat by changing the student's test papers; evidenced by more erasures than was "standard." Teaching to past standardized tests takes away from real learning; to be creative and teach to the student's interests. NCLB fails on many scores beyond lack of funding.

I am opposed to high stakes and massive standardized testing, and whats more I was long before NCLB. I have a vivid memory of a parent teacher conference 12 years ago at a military base school that was running a pilot program for the testing regiment that would later become NCLB, where I complained about the massive amount of class time that was spent teaching the test, and about what was sacrificed to make the time. The teacher got very annoyed with me, saying that she had no control over it, the decision had been made, and that stewing and/or complaining about it was a waste of time.

hawk, Did you know you're burning both sides of the candle? Your arguments about increased/sufficient funding and your challenge about NCLB are conflicted. Do you always have your cake and eat it too?

No, I do not. Kindly give an example.

No wonder! I've already explained it. I can assure you (almost) everybody else understands it.

Where? How much work is it for you to provide a quote that indicates what your arguement is? I have to assume that this is an exercise in turd throwing for you, that you have no interest in a serious discussion.

No, it's all there for everyone to see - if they are capable. You're not.

More likely you are suffering from comprehension problems. I am not in favor of NCLB, and I particularly dont like that washington grabbed power in exchange for grants and other funding from the Dep of Education, money that we dont have which is charged to the kids credit card through Federal debt auctions . My beef is that the schools cost way too much to operate, and NCLB is a big part of why, and Dep of Ed moneys dont change that at all. There is zero contradiction in my position.

By my calculation the trade is $700 per kid per year for letting Washington run Education. ($38 billion/53 million kids). This is nuts. It is all our money whether it comes from Washington or not, and Washington is not even using real money, as Washington was broke long ago.....they make a charge in our name and then give us cash. I say we should zero out the budget of the department of education, and let citizens run the schools according to their needs, through school boards. Radical concept I know.

Yes you do seem to have it correct " Capitalism works on greed" I am surprised that CI would not think so!

All jokes aside but you do think that it is the best system as CI does don't you? and if not what would be?

Don't you hate it when you have to listen closely and think hard to understand foreigners ???
'Australia is a Crime Scene'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6V82LD51UA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flVs1AjJwRM&NR=1



'My 60,000 yr-old shoes' - Aboriginal Australia

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t_Jhl0nz0I&feature=related

The initial versions of the tests were composed by people who knew nothing of teaching or testing standards. Massachusetts moved to make the tests real instruments but the cost was the removal of some of the best teachers from the classroom for a two year period, 16+/- years ago. I stated this several times on abuzz.

It is sad when people try to share logical reasoning and they are prosecuted for it!

Teachers also take class time to teach students how to take the tests and tricks to answer questions. So it takes more class time than one day.

You're absolutely right.

Furthermore, despite the fact that at the high school level, only the 10th graders take the general tests, there are always students retaking the tests. I believe that the science and history tests are given to 11th grade students, but, I have been out of the high school environment for a few years, so I might be wrong. At some of the larger schools, the drain on the faculty to proctor the tests and the need to provide quiet areas for testing, means that 9th, 11th and 12th grade students are dismissed for half-days, up to a week at a time.

A dedicated and well-educated young teacher (masters degrees both in English and in teaching English, the latter being something I do not endorse), when asked by a parent during an open house if she teaches to the test, said that yes she does. She later related the incident to other members of the faculty having lunch in the English department work room.

I would like to point out that when I trained to teach English in Michigan, the standard was: take one course in Shakespeare, one course in American Lit 1830-65, one upper level course in expository writing and one upper level course in grammar in addition to 30 hours of course work in poetry and prose, English and American literature. In other words, the English major for would-be teachers was not the usual 30 hours but 42 hours.

Massachusetts has no such standard. While I like the woman and think she is a terrific teacher and a wonderful asset to the faculty (she is the one person everyone turns to for advice and consolation), she has a master's degree in teaching English as a Second Language. What a waste of time. When I was in grad school, WSU offered one course in teaching ESL, or ELL for English Language LEarners as it is now called. One course is all that is needed.

One of my colleagues at the college where I now teach said that 30 years ago, ESL education consisted solely of grammar. She thinks it worked better.

Today's kids know nothing of grammar, so I have to teach them that "the object of a preposition is never the subject of a sentence."

Were they taught grammar in elementary school, perhaps, 30% of college freshmen would not be remedial classes.

Move-On.org agrees and calls this a disgrace! Here's what their petition to oust G.E. CEO Jeffrey Immelt says:



No job rewards for lobbyists!!!

The Petition to Oust Immelt

ciboy, you continue to prove that you are an ignoranus.
You're not as bad as POM, but you are challenging her position as #1 ignoranus on A2K.

LOL! at you waterboy

My post is at -1 as I write this. I will assume that everyone who voted it down is opposed to the teaching of grammar and in favor of teaching to the test.