NationStates Jolt Archive

In the State of the Union, Mr. Bush said he wanted to encourage more math and science in order to compete with the Chinese and Indians. (Both of which will pass the US in the number of engineers soon.) But a week later he submits a budget that cuts spending for education by 1/3. Just wondering if someone could explain this paradox.

*gasps*

Bush say one thing and do the opposite? Inconceivable.

In the State of the Union, Mr. Bush said he wanted to encourage more math and science in order to compete with the Chinese and Indians. (Both of which will pass the US in the number of engineers soon.) But a week later he submits a budget that cuts spending for education by 1/3. Just wondering if someone could explain this paradox.
Holy fuck a third

Idiots

I hate Bush.

In the State of the Union, Mr. Bush said he wanted to encourage more math and science in order to compete with the Chinese and Indians. (Both of which will pass the US in the number of engineers soon.) But a week later he submits a budget that cuts spending for education by 1/3. Just wondering if someone could explain this paradox.
Um, because more Federal Money != better education?

I think most of Europe has proved the value of Vouchers & a free-choice education system.

Time for John Stossel to come visit NS again... :rolleyes:

http://www.reason.com/hod/js011306.shtml

In the State of the Union, Mr. Bush said he wanted to encourage more math and science in order to compete with the Chinese and Indians. (Both of which will pass the US in the number of engineers soon.) But a week later he submits a budget that cuts spending for education by 1/3. Just wondering if someone could explain this paradox.

See? You're demonstrating better math skills already. :D

Here's my explanation. Anything that Bush praises publicly, wait 24 hours and he will cut its funding.

As some of his supporters here might put it, he's not cutting it, he's reforming it so that it works better for creating men and women with the skills we will need in the coming generation. i.e. We need an unskilled workforce with no opportunities so that they will be willing to join an undersupported military and fight wars for president Jeb.

Um, because more Federal Money != better education?
It's still a dumb thing to do. Education is the one area in which a government can spend money and everyone will agree, and you're pretty much guaranteed to get something back.

And I think the Chinese are already educating more engineers than the Americans, although I don't have figures.

Um, because more Federal Money != better education?

I think most of Europe has proved the value of Vouchers & a free-choice education system.

Time for John Stossel to come visit NS again... :rolleyes:
Not necessarily but cutting it by a third is not exactly trimming the fat. That is a massive ass cut, personally I think only an idiot would make that large a cut and hope for the best in our current situation.

Um, because more Federal Money != better education?

I think most of Europe has proved the value of Vouchers & a free-choice education system.

Um. Yes. They've proved that you get a better education if you don't have that system.

Um, because more Federal Money != better education?

I think most of Europe has proved the value of Vouchers & a free-choice education system.

Time for John Stossel to come visit NS again... :rolleyes:

Mr. Stossel should only be used when necessary to induce vomiting.

These claims about more engineers are disingenuous. A majority of the people I went to school with are not now practicing engineering, so why on earth should we try and educate more? Is there some pressing need for insurance agents with a knowledge of thermodynamics?

Um. Yes. They've proved that you get a better education if you don't have that system.
Um, no.

At age 10 US kids test relatively the same as Belgian kids, but things fall off precipitously from there. Why? Because in Europe you can pick your school. Underperforming schools don't get students and therefore don't get the govt. money. Hmmm. Seems like a voucher program to me.

Of course, checking out the data presented by that horrible neocon John Stossel :rolleyes: is just too hard.

Um, no.

At age 10 US kids test relatively the same as Belgian kids, but things fall off precipitously from there. Why? Because in Europe you can pick your school. Underperforming schools don't get students and therefore don't get the govt. money. Hmmm. Seems like a voucher program to me.

Of course, checking out the data presented by that horrible neocon John Stossel :rolleyes: is just too hard.

Well, you've clearly proven that the less you spend on education, the better results you get. :rolleyes:

Mr. Stossel should only be used when necessary to induce vomiting.
Unless he supports your POV? :rolleyes:

Unless he supports your POV? :rolleyes:

No. Period.

(I've seen his programs where I agreed with his premise and still found his abuse of the facts naseauting.)

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=19&media_outlet_id=19

If people got to choose their kids' school, education options would be endless. There could soon be technology schools, cheap Wal-Mart-like schools, virtual schools where you learn at home on your computer, sports schools, music schools, schools that go all year, schools with uniforms, schools that open early and keep kids later, and, who knows? If there were competition, all kinds of new ideas would bloom.
Oh yes, I can see it now. Hundreds of parents lined up to send their child to Wal*Mart. Right...

Oh, BTW, Asian countries, which I notice were left out of the report, have a goverment monopoly as well. They constantly out preform European and American schools.

Hmm... I wonder then if the whole voucher thing is yet another "Oh no, goverment is evil, we must destroy it!"

Well, you've clearly proven that the less you spend on education, the better results you get. :rolleyes:
No, I've linked a report that showes that the average dollar spent on "education" in the US goes less to education than to "average".

Demanding performance from the schools through removing the government monopoly and encouraging competition costs less per student. When it costs less per student, you dont need to spend as much, right?

Or am I missing the bit about administrative graft and Union dues?

No, I've linked a report that showes that the average dollar spent on "education" in the US goes less to education than to "average".

Demanding performance from the schools through removing the government monopoly and encouraging competition costs less per student. When it costs less per student, you dont need to spend as much, right?

Or am I missing the bit about administrative graft and Union dues?

No, you've link to an editorial that makes certain wild claims about a free-market education system.

And I've linked to one set of many reasons not to trust that source.

While a good chunk of Education funding comes from the federal government, most comes from the State/Local governments. Please don't "gasp" and act as if their budgets have been cut by 33%. They haven't been.

Um, no.

At age 10 US kids test relatively the same as Belgian kids, but things fall off precipitously from there. Why? Because in Europe you can pick your school. Underperforming schools don't get students and therefore don't get the govt. money. Hmmm. Seems like a voucher program to me.

Of course, checking out the data presented by that horrible neocon John Stossel :rolleyes: is just too hard.
Too bad he is not shifting money into that alternitive you want (as far as I can tell)

He is just cutting it period

For OP: That 1/3 cut through, was that out of the Department of Education, the college student loan programs, or out of various goverment grants that actually go to fund education?

How education is funded is a great exercise at spagittism so I'm curious what this 1/3rd cut would in.

Oh yes, I can see it now. Hundreds of parents lined up to send their child to Wal*Mart. Right...

Oh, BTW, Asian countries, which I notice were left out of the report, have a goverment monopoly as well. They constantly out preform European and American schools.

Hmm... I wonder then if the whole voucher thing is yet another "Oh no, goverment is evil, we must destroy it!"
Nice of you to join in, since I brought this up well back in January when the special report aired. I guess it wasn't importent then. :rolleyes:

Ninpou']While a good chunk of Education funding comes from the federal government, most comes from the State/Local governments. Please don't "gasp" and act as if their budgets have been cut by 33%. They haven't been.

We all know the difference between the federal budget and the state/local budgets.

Please explain how cutting the federal education budget (which includes block grants) by 1/3 doesn't cut funding for education overall.

Too bad he is not shifting money into that alternitive you want (as far as I can tell)

He is just cutting it period

Exactically!

No, you've link to an editorial that makes certain wild claims about a free-market education system.

And I've linked to one set of many reasons not to trust that source.
And FAIR is any less biased than the MRC?

Please.

Nice of you to join in, since I brought this up well back in January when the special report aired. I guess it wasn't importent then. :rolleyes:

What, you ran a thread in January, so now you own the topic and no one can disagree with you?

And FAIR is any less biased than the MRC?

Please.

Um. Yes. Yes it is less biased.

But you side-step the content of Stossel's fakery nicely.

What, you ran a thread in January, so now you own the topic and no one can disagree with you?
No, it's just mighty convenient that it is well after midnight locally and I now have to go dig up the data I had a month agowhen no one would debate the topic.

Nice of you to join in, since I brought this up well back in January when the special report aired. I guess it wasn't importent then. :rolleyes:
Early January?

Sorry, Syniks, I was busy with family life at the time. You know, having a life outside of NS?

We all know the difference between the federal budget and the state/local budgets.

Please explain how cutting the federal education budget (which includes block grants) by 1/3 doesn't cut funding for education overall.

It's simple math. If federal funding is a small but significant part of overall education funding.. if the federal funding is cut by 33%, it doesn't mean overall funding is cut by 33%.

Ninpou']It's simple math. If federal funding is a small but significant part of overall education funding.. if the federal funding is cut by 33%, it doesn't mean overall funding is cut by 33%.

Again, no duh. No one was under a different impression.

But a federal spending cut of 1/3 is a cut overall.

In the State of the Union, Mr. Bush said he wanted to encourage more math and science in order to compete with the Chinese and Indians. (Both of which will pass the US in the number of engineers soon.) But a week later he submits a budget that cuts spending for education by 1/3. Just wondering if someone could explain this paradox.

erm.. im just wondering where this proposed 1/3 cut in education was being made . Since, education is run by individual states not the federal government... are these cuts being made to no child left behind or where.. links would be helpful

In the State of the Union, Mr. Bush said he wanted to encourage more math and science in order to compete with the Chinese and Indians. (Both of which will pass the US in the number of engineers soon.) But a week later he submits a budget that cuts spending for education by 1/3. Just wondering if someone could explain this paradox.

Well.. considering it seems to be the High Lord Bush his wish that science teachers are not allowed to treat topics which could clash with peoples religious beliefs there is much, much less need for teachers. Just giving everyone a Bible is much cheaper.

Viewed like that, the cut makes sense. No need to give money to scienceteaching if noone will be teaching science.

Um, because more Federal Money != better education?

I think most of Europe has proved the value of Vouchers & a free-choice education system.

Time for John Stossel to come visit NS again... :rolleyes:

http://www.reason.com/hod/js011306.shtml

:D

Time to bring up that stupid ass?

Sorry you just lost my ear quoting that simpleton.....

Again, no duh. No one was under a different impression.

But a federal spending cut of 1/3 is a cut overall.


YOU seem to be under that impression. -STATES- and -LOCAL GOVERNMENTS- control funding for education. There are VERY FEW programs that the Federal government gets involved with.

Can you comprehend this?

Since you can't seem to, I've made you a pie graph.

http://mars.walagata.com/w/sailoralea/graph.jpg

As you can see, the supposed "cuts" (if there are any actually affecting children, rather than college students) are insignificant and are NOT "one third" -overall-.

Um, no.

At age 10 US kids test relatively the same as Belgian kids, but things fall off precipitously from there. Why? Because in Europe you can pick your school. Underperforming schools don't get students and therefore don't get the govt. money. Hmmm. Seems like a voucher program to me.

Of course, checking out the data presented by that horrible neocon John Stossel :rolleyes: is just too hard.
The European system and the American system isn't the same. As I understand it, Europe cuts the bottom students out and sends them to trade type schools. Americans keep everyone in that wants to stay in. If you cut out the bottom, the numbers will go up.

Ninpou']As you can see, the supposed "cuts" (if there are any actually affecting children, rather than college students) are insignificant and are NOT "one third" -overall-.
Not, quite, true. It depends on the program being cut. I mean, 1/3 cut to the free lunch program, without removing the mandate, would hurt. So the question is, where is the cuts, what is being cut, and is that needed money?

Look--I don't know what programs were cut. I'm just saying that schools are run at the state and local level--not at the federal level. A small percentage of funding comes from the feral government, and a federal decrease of 33% doesn't mean an overall Education cut by 33%.

Ninpou']Look--I don't know what programs were cut. I'm just saying that schools are run at the state and local level--not at the federal level. A small percentage of funding comes from the feral government, and a federal decrease of 33% doesn't mean an overall Education cut by 33%.
I can accept that, yes. It may not be insignificant however, depending on what was cut of course.

Um. Yes. Yes it is less biased.

But you side-step the content of Stossel's fakery nicely.
Ah, did I?

I no more consider FAIR an objective agency than you do the MRC 9I don't consider MRC objective either, but that's neither here nor there).

In my local school district(s) we found an interesting thing - the schools that spent the most per student had the lowest scores. Funny how that seems to work. What was even more interesting was that the score data totally left out the scores from the private schools - which cost less per student because someone actually has to pay for it out of their pocket.

There are special cops from San Jose to the Chicago Burbs making sure that nobody from an underperforming school district sneaks into a better performing one.

But never mind that, maybe Kansas City would be a good place to look:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0106/stossel011806.php3

In 1985 Kansas City, Mo., judge Russell Clark said the city's predominately black schools were not "halfway decent," and he ordered the government to spend billions more. Did the billions improve test scores? Did they hire better teachers, provide better books? Did the students learn anything?

Well, they learned how to waste lots of money.

The bureaucrats renovated school buildings, adding enormous gyms, an Olympic swimming pool, a robotics lab, TV studios, a zoo, a planetarium, and a wildlife sanctuary. They added intense instruction in foreign languages. They spent so much money that when they decided to bring more white kids to the city's schools, they didn't have to resort to busing. Instead, they paid for 120 taxis. Taxis!

What did spending billions more accomplish? The schools got worse. In 2000, five years and $2 billion later, the Kansas City school district failed 11 performance standards and lost its academic accreditation for the first time in the district's history.

Oops. But that's OK, we can ignore it because it's from a Right Wing Chris... er... Jewish... er. Hmmmm. I guess it isn't NeoCon Town Hall after all.

Oddly enough, when I brought this up the last time a few of our European Friends were astounded that we DON'T give our students a choice when it comes to secondary schools. Darn Americans, not following Enlightened Euro Standards again. Er... wait, that would be against NEA wishes wouldn't it? Never mind. Euro Liberalisim can only go so far, you know?

Oh well. I suppose we can just continue to throw money at it rather than forcing a fiscal reevaluation.

After all, we all know what doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result means.

But don't worry. The last thing to be cut will be Administration boondoggles and overhead. Remember, the Kids come first. :rolleyes:

Here is another take for you to ignore - if only because it speaks directly to certain truths:

January 19, 2006
Stupid in America

This week 20/20 aired a special called Stupid in America: How we Cheat our Kids. The crux of John Stossel's argument is that the problems facing American public education are systematic, and that calling insufficient funding the primary obstacle to improvement is not only wholly incorrect but in fact destructive to improvement efforts. Stossel also revised his argument for a Reason Online preview as well as a follow-up piece on the subject. Not everyone likes Stossel's style -- I for one wish you couldn't tell his side of every issue simply by the tone of his voice -- but his special did a great job of touching on nearly all the major components of this extremely complex problem.

I've been able to wrestle with these issues some in grad school and in my workplace, so while I'm no expert I do think I understand the basics, and what upsets me the most about this "debate" is that it's not really a debate so much as a special interest shoutdown in which the sides were chosen before the facts were considered. The issues are "underfunded" vs. "unaccountable" more than test scores or reading levels or graduation rates or preparation for college and life. Whether or not a citizen believes "No Child Left Behind" is well designed -- or even well intentioned -- is more closely correlated with one's opinion of the President than one's opinion of the problem. Why do partisan legislators and career lobbyists get to create a world where you have to choose between improved teacher pay and improved accountability? And still worse, why do we have to make that choice exclusively at the ballot box once every two years, at best?

Many of my friends are public schoolteachers -- among the best, brightest, and most dedicated by every indication I have -- and I suspect they'll agree that the problems Stossel cites definitely exist. Over the years I've heard them say that the public school system doesn't pay teachers enough, makes class sizes too big, forces them into boilerplate rituals for curriculum and student development, strips them of time and resources, has no clue how to manage special education, and hamstrings their ability to do what they do best with debilitating administration or legislation at every level of the system and the government. But what my friends, and every expert I've ever heard, disagree on is how to actually fix the problems. It seems there's no one person, no committee, no board, and no legislative body in the world that can figure out how to provide everything needed to educate all types of children in every way demanded by parents and society while simultaneously providing for its hard-working educators and being efficient stewards of their allocated funding.

So, if no person or team has the capability to devise a solution to such a complicated problem, can American schools ever dream of even approaching this optimal level of service to their constituents and society at large? And if not, how in the world do we prioritize? Well... I do have one suggestion: isn't this exactly the kind of scenario in which the concept of choice is most useful? Is it possible that, when we let parents prioritize for themselves, we can look at the aggregation of their choices and get a real sense of the kinds of classrooms and schools are most important to them? And while nearly anyone willing to be a public school teacher under the current system is clearly caring, hard-working, and dedicated, wouldn't teachers and students alike benefit if their administrators have to provide teachers with the resources necessary to compete for the parents' satisfaction and respect?

Now, when I say choice, I should clarify that I'm not necessarily referring to a particular boilerplate solution. We're still missing a lot of data. With few exceptions, education research can't even find weak associations between particular variables and educational improvement, let alone correlations. As a result, I'm extremely sympathetic to the argument that we don't have enough reliable data to make a case for a wholesale switch to vouchers, charter schools, or even private schools. But these would seem to be arguments in favor of getting the data, not stifling the debate -- but for some reason that's never an allowable compromise. (read: NEA)

Are there counter-arguments worth discussing? Sure there are -- it's extremely relevant to discuss the impact of a closing school on the local community, the financial and social costs of transition, the need to retain accountability of our tax dollars, and whether we can trust parents to make the best decisions for their children, to name a few examples. But we should wage the serious arguments -- deriving an intrinsic and, heaven forbid, productive value from educating about education -- and not resign ourselves exclusively to the reductio ad absurdum. I don't have the answers, but I do resent that there are people or organizations out there who don't even want to have the conversation.

Nope. Don't talk about it. Stossel is teh ebil! :rolleyes:

Ninpou']Can you comprehend this?

Since you can't seem to, I've made you a pie graph.
Jeez, you're a condescending one, aren't you?

The point is that funding was cut. That was a stupid thing to do so shortly after supposedly endorsing an improvement of the system, since the cut funding will now either go into financing government debt or be wasted on other stuff (like more $2 billion bombers).

Cat-Tribe is undeserving of your ridicule.

Ninpou']YOU seem to be under that impression. -STATES- and -LOCAL GOVERNMENTS- control funding for education. There are VERY FEW programs that the Federal government gets involved with.

Can you comprehend this?

Since you can't seem to, I've made you a pie graph.

http://mars.walagata.com/w/sailoralea/graph.jpg

As you can see, the supposed "cuts" (if there are any actually affecting children, rather than college students) are insignificant and are NOT "one third" -overall-.
Shhh. You will confuse them.

Here is another take for you to ignore - if only because it speaks directly to certain truths:



Nope. Don't talk about it. Stossel is teh ebil! :rolleyes:
Speaking of ignoring, I DID ask you, repeatedly, just how privitization would actually somehow magically save the school system given the realities of the system, and you never answered. You instead prefered to attack the NEA, as usual.

So, one more time, just how will choice magically make everything better, and STILL allow all 65 million+ kids get a quality education?

I find it ammusing that you post an opinion that states it's all due to political leanings, when your push for vouchers is just part and parcell of your usual call to libertarianize the goverment.

No, I've linked a report that showes that the average dollar spent on "education" in the US goes less to education than to "average".Which is the result of mandatory standards testing - teachers are forced to teach students how to meet those standards, but not how to exceed them.

January 19, 2006
Stupid in America

This week 20/20 aired a special called Stupid in America: How we Cheat our Kids. The crux of John Stossel's argument is that the problems facing American public education are systematic,They are systematic, but not all of them are systematic with the public school system (though some are), but a lot of them are there due to the American system.

To put it simply, a child in Europe knows that if they work hard and get a good education, that they are likely to succeed. In America, this simply isn't the case. Therefore, children in America are falling behind not totally because of the system itself (though that's part of it), but because they know that an education won't get them anywhere.

Speaking of ignoring, I DID ask you, repeatedly, just how privitization would actually somehow magically save the school system given the realities of the system, and you never answered. You instead prefered to attack the NEA, as usual.Frankly, I will attack any organization that behaves the way the NEA does. But then, this time all I did was highlight some things that were written by someone else. But then, when is highlighting atruth an attack?
So, one more time, just how will choice magically make everything better, and STILL allow all 65 million+ kids get a quality education? There is no magic. But we DO know "throwing more money" isn't helping. Hell, they were talking about this very problem back in 1971. "If it were not for the school systems' monopoly on the education of the poor, the schools would have gone bankrupt long ago." Allan C. Ornstein, p. 91, "Decentralizing Urban Schools," Journal of Secondary Education, February 1971Perhaps we should try somthing different? Time to make hamburger out of some sacred cows and let poor people have some choice.
I find it ammusing that you post an opinion that states it's all due to political leanings, when your push for vouchers is just part and parcell of your usual call to libertarianize the goverment.I posted that opinion because I agree wiht it. Why would that be humorous? It states a truth. I want more freedom for parents and children, you want less. That is the essence of Politics. I find it amusing that someone who doesn't even work in a US school system insists on speaking for it. Maybe you should look at some other educator's opinions.

http://www.educationnews.org/Gencomm/School_Funding_An_Invalid_Excuse_A_Futile_Hope.htm

As for vouchers, to me they are a concession to government control and the desirability of universal education that trumps pure free-market rules. When you tie the money to the student, not the district or school, you have TRUE equality of expendature, somthing that does not currently exist. I want the poor kid to get an equal cut of the education money -AND the ability to use it where it is most effective. That isn't happening now and won't improve by just adding more money to the pot.

I think before any debate about funding goes on, people should be honest about the role of the american education system, and debate what it's actually for.

As far as I can see, it's primary role is not actually to provide trained graduates for the american economy anyway. Or to educate people. It's prinicpal aim seems to be to provide jobs, keep unemployment figures down, and provide construction contracts.

I notice no-one seems to care that the US doesn't actually need more science graduates, other than because of some silly point of 'national pride'. (While I think of it, the education system is also geared towards winning the most medals at the olympics for some unspecified reason).

There is a shortage of doctors, and a horrible surplus of political science grads.

I would have imagined sorting out what society actually wants from its schools would have primacy over funding debates, but then american schools discourage critical thinking, so I shouldn't be surprised.

While I am at it, has anyone else noticed that the retirement age is being progressively increased while simultaneously the average length of schooling is creeping up? Given that most jobs do not actually require a college degree I can't see this drive by politicians to put everyone through college as anything else but fucking madness. And given the amount of debt it saddles young people with, slightly evil too.

Frankly, I will attack any organization that behaves the way the NEA does. But then, this time all I did was highlight some things that were written by someone else. But then, when is highlighting atruth an attack?
Since when is making snide remarks highlighting the truth?

There is no magic. But we DO know "throwing more money" isn't helping. Hell, they were talking about this very problem back in 1971. Perhaps we should try somthing different? Time to make hamburger out of some sacred cows and let poor people have some choice.
So, we go from limited choice to compleate choice, and that does... what exactly? What do you expect it to do? What the hell to you think will happen? You keep harping about this holy mantra, but you have yet to state one Goddamn thing about how this will help beyond platatudes about free markets and choice. So, tell me, given the cost and the holy terror of disruption this will cause, what do you see as the benifits of letting go and turning everything over? Please, I'm all agog at hearing this. Because you know what, no one who has ever espoused vouchers and privaitization has ever been kind enough to say what they think will actually happen.

I posted that opinion because I agree wiht it. Why would that be humorous? It states a truth. I want more freedom for parents and children, you want less.
Have I ever stated I wanted less choice? Stop trying to put words in my mouth and start talking yourself.

I find it amusing that someone who doesn't even work in a US school system insists on speaking for it. Maybe you should look at some other educator's opinions.
Well, unlike you who has just observed the US education system, I've actually worked in it. I also learned about it as it's my trade. Try again.

As for vouchers, to me they are a concession to government control and the desirability of universal education that trumps pure free-market rules. When you tie the money to the student, not the district or school, you have TRUE equality of expendature, somthing that does not currently exist. I want the poor kid to get an equal cut of the education money -AND the ability to use it where it is most effective. That isn't happening now and won't improve by just adding more money to the pot.
And like I stated, Asian countries do not offer choice, China out preforms the US and you better damn well believe they have strict state control over education. Japan still out performs, and there is less choice than within the US system. So choice, and vouchers, doesn't seem to be the holy of cures.
So why do you keep saying it will?

Most studies indicate the biggest difference in student learning comes from the size of the school. The larger the school the worse students do. Over the years schools have gotten bigger under the business plan that says a Wal-Mart is more economically efficient than a Mom & Pop. But now we find that as with Wal-Mart, quality suffers with economic efficency.

Studies show that the ideal school district has about 200 students in the High School. This is large enough to provide services and extras but small enough students don't get lost. Some of the massive districts are actually splitting up buildings into different schools. One floor will be a different school than the next floor. This is an attempt to follow the research without razing all of the buildings and starting over.

In the State of the Union, Mr. Bush said he wanted to encourage more math and science in order to compete with the Chinese and Indians. (Both of which will pass the US in the number of engineers soon.) But a week later he submits a budget that cuts spending for education by 1/3. Just wondering if someone could explain this paradox.

Does spending money automatically mean an improvement?

If that is true, then Washington DC Public Schools should have the greatest level of achievement, since they spend the most per student (40 percent more than they do in my home location, Fairfax County, Virginia).

As it is, Fairfax County has traditionally scored very high as education goes, and DC has traditionally scored in the basement.

This new learning amazes me. Tell me again how sheep's bladders may be used to predict earthquakes.

In the State of the Union, Mr. Bush said he wanted to encourage more math and science in order to compete with the Chinese and Indians. (Both of which will pass the US in the number of engineers soon.) But a week later he submits a budget that cuts spending for education by 1/3. Just wondering if someone could explain this paradox.

It is called a lie. Politicians are quite well known for telling lies.

In the State of the Union, Mr. Bush said he wanted to encourage more math and science in order to compete with the Chinese and Indians. (Both of which will pass the US in the number of engineers soon.) But a week later he submits a budget that cuts spending for education by 1/3. Just wondering if someone could explain this paradox.
Gee whiz, you mean Bush said one thing and did another?

The answer to your question is this: Bush is interested in power, not in effective and beneficent government.

The education budget doubled in Bush's first term. A one third cut in fiscal 2007 still leaves the education budget higher than what it was when Bush first took office in January 2001.

Anyway, I think the US government spends way too much money on way too many programs as it is. $2.77 trillion (that doesn't include the cost of Iraq or Afghanistan)? What a monster of a budget. Here are 8 pages and $380 billion worth of spending programmes the Cato Institute believes should be cut: http://www.cato.org/fiscal/proposed_cuts.pdf
I agree with them 100%

In the State of the Union, Mr. Bush said he wanted to encourage more math and science in order to compete with the Chinese and Indians. (Both of which will pass the US in the number of engineers soon.) But a week later he submits a budget that cuts spending for education by 1/3. Just wondering if someone could explain this paradox.
It is important for a strong military.

Well, it's a well-known fact that ignorance is a powerful tool for the system. It's easier to control people who don't know what is going on.

You have to love how that guy looks at Belgium and says,

"Hey! Market socialism works! ... Therefore, why don't we try rampant government-subsidized capitalism?!"

Talk about non sequitur... damn... :confused:

I think the message Bush is trying to send is that Americans should learn more better with less. I mean Bush learned everything he knows from one book and from that one book, he only studied a few selected passages.

*gasps*
Bush say one thing and do the opposite? Inconceivable.
That's the beauty of Newspeak.

More education spending =/= better education. We've been spending a fortune on schools and it's only gotten worse. What we need are real accountability and competition before we can give more money. Otherwise, it's going to be wasted on bureaucracy and will do nothing to improve education.

More education spending =/= better education. We've been spending a fortune on schools and it's only gotten worse. What we need are real accountability and competition before we can give more money. Otherwise, it's going to be wasted on bureaucracy and will do nothing to improve education.

So what your saying is, remove funding from those schools that are failing?

More education spending =/= better education. We've been spending a fortune on schools and it's only gotten worse. What we need are real accountability and competition before we can give more money. Otherwise, it's going to be wasted on bureaucracy and will do nothing to improve education.
Why not just privatize the public schools??? Privatizations fix everything.

Why not just privatize the public schools??? Privatizations fix everything.
I hope your joking. I call for less government and a hybrid education system (public schools but an environment where private schools are more accessible), but thorough privatization of the educational system is madness.

I hope your joking. I call for less government and a hybrid education system (public schools but an environment where private schools are more accessible), but thorough privatization of the educational system is madness.
AH HA HAH! Madness excites me...

I hope your joking. I call for less government and a hybrid education system (public schools but an environment where private schools are more accessible), but thorough privatization of the educational system is madness.

Partial privatization could be a step towards total private education, although some program would still have to exist to ensure everyone can afford it. Generally, a hybrid program seems the best choice at this time; simply put, fully public education is a failiure in all senses of the word at this time and has to be changed or we risk totally sacrificing our competitiveness in the future.

In the State of the Union, Mr. Bush said he wanted to encourage more math and science in order to compete with the Chinese and Indians. (Both of which will pass the US in the number of engineers soon.) But a week later he submits a budget that cuts spending for education by 1/3.

StierSchize(BS) my school already doesn't get enough funding if you ask me he should increase funding by 33% but it is Bush so...not going to happen. Just like a war with Mexico...Fools have their military helping drug smugglers out of the US. :mad: :sniper:

Bush and his education policies =/
I remember when i was in high school...all my teachers hated his "no child left behind".
But I do have to admit his tax breaks help stimulate the economy...

We all know the difference between the federal budget and the state/local budgets.

Please explain how cutting the federal education budget (which includes block grants) by 1/3 doesn't cut funding for education overall.

You dissapoint me again Cat. Of all people to check these facts I would have presumed you would have. So far nobody has offered any supporting proof of this claim.

As usual, I will lead you by the hand to the truth;
http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/12804/

The largest source of federal education aid to states, the $12.7 billion Title I program for low-income students, would receive no new funding under the president's proposed budget for fiscal year 2007, which begins Oct. 1. Title I accounts for about half of federal spending to implement the 2002 federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, which aims to close achievement gaps and get all students to read and do math at grade level by 2014.

Bush proposed a 4.6 percent increase -- about $1 billion -- for new NCLB programs, including initiatives aimed at boosting America's international competitiveness in math and science and extending NCLB requirements into high school.

Last week Bush announced in his State of the Union address his intentions to focus on math and science achievement by creating the "American Competitiveness Initiative." The initiative includes $250 million for elementary school programs intended to boost math achievement and $90 million to train 70,000 additional teachers for math, science and foreign language "advanced placement," or AP, courses that help high school students qualify for college credits...

...The overall federal education budget would be cut by $3.1 billion, or 5.5 percent from 2006 levels. Much of the cuts would come from scrapping 42 education programs totaling $3.5 billion, including programs for the arts, state grants for vocational education, Perkins loans for low-income college students and the Even Start literacy program for poor families. However, Congress rejected cutting most of these programs when Bush requested their elimination last year. Congress cut only five of the 48 programs Bush slated for elimination in last year's budget proposal.

Bush and his education policies =/
I remember when i was in high school...all my teachers hated his "no child left behind"...
It sucks when they are held accountable.

It sucks when they are held accountable.
So they tell me. I have never been able to get a teacher to explain how they should be evaluated. Only that every method ever proposed is too subjective.

Holy fuck a third

Idiots


... ditto! As if the schools weren't depraved enough. Well, maybe they aren't everywhere, but in my district, the county's elected to tax themselves extra for the past three years just to keep the school year the standard number of days long. In seventh grade the teachers taught for free for a week. We already don't have enough money and he's gonna cut it by a third? Hell, at that rate the school years will be so short I'll have to take five years of high school just to get enough class hours for the credit for my diploma!

I swear. This guy is doing so much fucking damage... and I don't think it's coincidence the trouble started in 2001, in 6th grade, right after he got elected. True I wasn't paying much attention to news so I might be wrong but I do wonder.

It sucks when they are held accountable.

No it sucks when they're forced to teach for what is going to be on the test, rather then what they would teach normally.

Forcing tests down the kid's throats ain't too grand either.

So they tell me. I have never been able to get a teacher to explain how they should be evaluated. Only that every method ever proposed is too subjective.
Portfolios are good. I would have no problem with video taping my class to be reviewed by a board made up of my department head, an administrator, another master teacher, and even a parent. I also have no isues with turning over a portfolio of lesson plans and student work.

Accountability however, for those who "only want to hold teachers accountable" seems to consist of either making teachers take standardized tests (which says nothing, I may know my subject matter, but not how to teach it, and they only cover, on average, 3% of what a normal school year would conatin). Or, test my students with the same tests, which again says nothing for the same reasons.

If I made cars, would you state how well I'm doing by how well I actually put together a car, or how well someone drives it?

There, now you've had a teacher explain a good method for reviewing teachers. I've yet to hear how a hybrid system will actually fix schools.

No it sucks when they're forced to teach for what is going to be on the test, rather then what they would teach normally.

Forcing tests down the kid's throats ain't too grand either.

This I agree with :)

In the State of the Union, Mr. Bush said he wanted to encourage more math and science in order to compete with the Chinese and Indians. (Both of which will pass the US in the number of engineers soon.) But a week later he submits a budget that cuts spending for education by 1/3. Just wondering if someone could explain this paradox.

Well I dont know the nature of the situation in America, but I can see at least one logical reason for it. It is possible that the system is flawed.

If you have a flawed system, and know that it is flawed, if you take away some of the resources that run said system, it can be made clearer what is and is not nessecary to keep the system running well.

Well I dont know the nature of the situation in America, but I can see at least one logical reason for it. It is possible that the system is flawed.

If you have a flawed system, and know that it is flawed, if you take away some of the resources that run said system, it can be made clearer what is and is not nessecary to keep the system running well.

I've heard that reason before. But the fact is the budget for inefficiency has already been cut and now we're cutting into every perfectly efficient extra we have. Soon we'll be down to barest essentials.

If you have a flawed system, and know that it is flawed, if you take away some of the resources that run said system, it can be made clearer what is and is not nessecary to keep the system running well.

That's right! It's like when doctors have an ailing patient, and they know he's ailing... so they starve him to make it clearer what is and is not necessary to keep him running well!

Oops... it turns out that "food" was one of the things necessary to keep him running well. :headbang:

If you have a flawed system, and know that it is flawed, if you take away some of the resources that run said system, it can be made clearer what is and is not nessecary to keep the system running well.
The problem with that approch is that the budget is done every year. So, if you're trying to find out what was important, and you cut away too much, what do you say to those kids, "Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, we've taken away your art, music, sports, and have cut heavily into academics. We can't fix this till next year, but hey, you can catch up then, assuming the budget passes"?

The problem with that approch is that the budget is done every year. So, if you're trying to find out what was important, and you cut away too much, what do you say to those kids, "Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, we've taken away your art, music, sports, and have cut heavily into academics. We can't fix this till next year, but hey, you can catch up then, assuming the budget passes"?

The problem in many schools in an unwillingness to let go of less than necessary administrative and support personnel; I recall that during the Mentor Ohio budget crisis, the Board of Educators responsible for the mess were easily pulling six-figure salaries, and not one of them took a pay cut.

In fact, the superintendent of the school district doesn't even live in Mentor; she lives in another city where property taxes are lower...meaning the school earns no tax money from her yet pays it out to her. That attitude has to change before real reform can happen.

The problem in many schools in an unwillingness to let go of less than necessary administrative and support personnel; I recall that during the Mentor Ohio budget crisis, the Board of Educators responsible for the mess were easily pulling six-figure salaries, and not one of them took a pay cut.

In fact, the superintendent of the school district doesn't even live in Mentor; she lives in another city where property taxes are lower...meaning the school earns no tax money from her yet pays it out to her. That attitude has to change before real reform can happen.
Superintendants are hired by the school boards. School boards are elected by the people. There's a very easy solution to this then.

Superintendants are hired by the school boards. School boards are elected by the people. There's a very easy solution to this then.

Unfortunately, no one pays attention to school board elections...they'd rather go on a witch hunt against the teachers and "unnecessary" programs, and that attitude has yet to change. And what's even worse is that the board collaborates with them to get rid of these things as a CYA move.

I think the school's treasurer ran away to Georgia after the budget crisis was discovered...

No it sucks when they're forced to teach for what is going to be on the test, rather then what they would teach normally.

Forcing tests down the kid's throats ain't too grand either.

And tell me, since when has testing obsolete? There is no better way to measure knowledge. For God sake I HOPE they are teaching what is on the test. That is the frikkin point. It is obvious that what the vast majority have been 'teaching' normally is crap.

And tell me, since when has testing obsolete? There is no better way to measure knowledge. For God sake I HOPE they are teaching what is on the test. That is the frikkin point. It is obvious that what the vast majority have been 'teaching' normally is crap.

I believe he is referring to those disgusting SATs.

Which reminds me, I better be studying for mine that are coming up soon :(

They need to ditch those.

Portfolios are good. I would have no problem with video taping my class to be reviewed by a board made up of my department head, an administrator, another master teacher, and even a parent. I also have no isues with turning over a portfolio of lesson plans and student work.

Accountability however, for those who "only want to hold teachers accountable" seems to consist of either making teachers take standardized tests (which says nothing, I may know my subject matter, but not how to teach it, and they only cover, on average, 3% of what a normal school year would conatin). Or, test my students with the same tests, which again says nothing for the same reasons.

If I made cars, would you state how well I'm doing by how well I actually put together a car, or how well someone drives it?

There, now you've had a teacher explain a good method for reviewing teachers. I've yet to hear how a hybrid system will actually fix schools.

The only way to measure any car IS to drive it. If GM and Ford put out cars with a failure rate remotely close to what the teachers union has... we'd all be pedaling to work or driving imports.

Portfolios are good. I would have no problem with video taping my class to be reviewed by a board made up of my department head, an administrator, another master teacher, and even a parent.
OMFG! EVEN A PARENT! Are you nuts? They aren't HALF as interested in the results as the administrator or master teacher. Well, at least you have the parent outnumbered in case they should think to suggest you do something different....

Since you are a teacher you then must know this new method of measuring knowledge which is so superior to testing. Please demonstrate. I had no idea that testing was obsolete. Imagine how much more productive our schools would be without testing and instead using this magical measuring system of yours.

And tell me, since when has testing obsolete? There is no better way to measure knowledge. For God sake I HOPE they are teaching what is on the test. That is the frikkin point. It is obvious that what the vast majority have been 'teaching' normally is crap.
And here we have exhibit A as to why teachers need to know more than subject matter. Tests as the best way to judge and measure knowledge? Bull. There are far, far better ways to measure than just a test. Testing is the easiest in terms of time, but in all honesty, tells you very little.

And here we have exhibit A as to why teachers need to know more than subject matter. Tests as the best way to judge and measure knowledge? Bull. There are far, far better ways to measure than just a test. Testing is the easiest in terms of time, but in all honesty, tells you very little.

Giggles like a schoolgirl that she is :D

Don't tell that to some of my teachers even though I like this statement.

Giggling

In response to the following article posted by Syniks:

http://www.reason.com/hod/js011306.shtml

There really isn't any data in that article. Stossel just says that the Belgian kids scored higher. He doesn't say what they scored, though. Also, he doesn't give a table of school system vs. test scores by country, which would actually provide some meaningful data.
Why do neocons always talk about 'data'? It's like some sh*tty buzzword for them.

I seriously hope people arent suprised that this is happening

Stossel's logic is just flawed. Belgium's system is better than America's. Belgium's system is free market, America's is socialist. Theefore ALL freemarket systems are better than all free market systems. OR one member of A is better than one member of B, therefore ALL of A must be better than all of B. OR, Kobe Bryant is better than Rasheed Wallace, therefore, the Lakers MUST be better than the Pistons. OR Japan scores higher than Belgium, therefore ALL socialized school systems must be better than ALL privatized one. Logic FLAWED. Point DRIVEN INTO THE GROUND.

Also, he sometimes uses Belgium, and sometimes uses Western Europe. But he doesn't describe the system in other Western European countries. So, NS posters from Europe, are schools "privatized?" I'm pretty sure they aren't in France, for one. He uses way too many generalizations without enough evadence, and that's just attacking his logic.

Personally, I think education is different from sending packages. Namely, if poor people can't afford to send their packages via UPS, their kids aren't doomed to holding crappy jobs the rest of their life.

The only way to measure any car IS to drive it. If GM and Ford put out cars with a failure rate remotely close to what the teachers union has... we'd all be pedaling to work or driving imports.
Nice try, I didn't say drive the car to test it, I said pay the automaker by how well the customer drives the car. There's no control over that customer, is he or she a race car driver, an idiot who has gotten suspended, what? But, you propose to pay that automaker by that standard, not how well the car was designed, not how well it actually drives, not by if it meets all standards, but by how well someone else drives it.

OMFG! EVEN A PARENT! Are you nuts? They aren't HALF as interested in the results as the administrator or master teacher. Well, at least you have the parent outnumbered in case they should think to suggest you do something different....
And here you started a thread in Moderation about Cat's sarcasm...

I invite parents because they have a stakehold in education, it is their sons and daughters. I ask for master teachers and administators because, as you have proven so well, many people do not have a clue when it comes to how to educate.

How would you like it if I came into YOUR work place, and based on only my say so, I can have you fired, or reduce your pay. I don't know what you do, I don't even know why you do what you do, but damn it, I am better than you so I should say if you get paid or not.

I find it amusing though that people like you, who are the first to bitch when someone complains about how the military does their jobs, or President Bush does his, are more than willing to tell me how to do mine.

Since you are a teacher you then must know this new method of measuring knowledge which is so superior to testing. Please demonstrate. I had no idea that testing was obsolete. Imagine how much more productive our schools would be without testing and instead using this magical measuring system of yours.
Not obsolete, just not useful to actually measure knowledge and progress. So listen closely B0zzy, there'll be a test later.

Here we have a test:

1. 2+4 =?
a) 6
b) 5
c) 2
d) Myrth

What does that actually tell me? That the student knows the answer? But how did he get to it, can he actually DO math, or did he guess? Did he count on his fingers and toes? And if the student got it right, was this an improvment? Did he backslide? Again, it says NOTHING.

Except what the right answer is.

2. Name the two houses in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet:

Does answering this mean the student actually knows the play? Can tell me why its important in Western lit? Can tell me the major plot lines and why they were important? Can tell me why Shakespeare wrote it the way he did? Could I know, from this question, if my students can take this play and apply it to current movies and see where the simularities and differences lie?

Or could they only just tell me the names? I wouldn't even know if they read the damn play from this.

Testing gets about MAYBE 3% of a curricula. So what do I do with the other 97%? If, like our automaker, I am paid by how well someone drives my car, not the car itself; perhaps I would find out what the test would contain. I might then force any potential drivers to drive the same sets of circumstances over and over again. I may even remove things from the car that are not needed in the test to focuss more on making my car as test proof as possible. Don't have any tests on driving in bad weather? Well, screw putting on all wheel drive. Why bother? Don't have test questions talking about Huckleberry Finn beyond who wrote it, why teach a book that is a cornerstone of American lit?

Test teachers? Great! I can study all about English to my hearts content and then some. I can spit out facts about grammar and parts of speech, I can name all the major and minor plays of Shakespeare, I can even recite the opening lines of Canturbuary Tales. But you cannot SAY with anything approching certain, how I will teach that. Will I be inovative, or will I just put the facts on the board and demand that my students memorize them.

Want proof of this, B0zzy? Look at Japan. They have been teaching English for years. For years, the goal has been to pass the entrance exams for university and nothing more. Those tests (until this year) didn't even contain a listening portion. They were grammar rules only, and nothing practical. The result is that many Japanese students have gone to college, but they have a nation that cannot readily respond to "Would you like some fries?"

How would a portfolio system work better? By taking actual work over a period of time, I can see trends within the data. I can see if a teacher is making quality lesson plans and carrying them out. From studying student work, I can see if students are actually understanding the lessons, or are failing to. For those who are failing, perhaps we can see if they start to understand more, or not. Do students remain at a flat undertanding throughout the whole year, or are there improvements, hwoever small?

These cannot be tested with a damn scantron. The reason scantrons are liked is because they are easy and quick to do, and they can be pointed to by politicans looking to get re-ellected "Look! Tests scores are up!"

So, question, Which is the best way to determine student comprehension of materials? a) Standardized testing b) portfolio work c) Myrth

Nice try, I didn't say drive the car to test it, I said pay the automaker by how well the customer drives the car. There's no control over that customer, is he or she a race car driver, an idiot who has gotten suspended, what? But, you propose to pay that automaker by that standard, not how well the car was designed, not how well it actually drives, not by if it meets all standards, but by how well someone else drives it.
Huh? You've taken this analogy so far it really no longer makes any sense. I think what you are trying to say is that a car maker shouldn't be paid according to the ability of the car drivers who buy their car. I think. More accurate would be to discuss a driving school. If their students consistently fail the driving test and fail to get a license then yes, it would make sense to pay their instructors less. Your analogy is not accurate since the driver never has contact with the carmaker - unlike a student. The student IS the product, or car, not the driver. The education cannot be separated from the student.


And here you started a thread in Moderation about Cat's sarcasm...

no, it was about my perception of what I considered a personal attack. Like this;
as you have proven so well, many people do not have a clue when it comes to how to educate.


How would you like it if I came into YOUR work place, and based on only my say so, I can have you fired, or reduce your pay. I don't know what you do, I don't even know why you do what you do, but damn it, I am better than you so I should say if you get paid or not.
Welcome to the real world. That is EXACTLY how things work in my workplace. Any client can 'fire' me by taking their business elsewhere. (which does affect my income) For true incompetence I can be dismissed or even lose my license. No tenure in the real world. Parents don't have the option of choice when it comes to their children's education - at least - not moderate and low income parents.
If I had as low a regard for my customers as you do of yours (the parents) I would be quite unemployed. Your arrogance is evidence of the trouble with the US education system. Accountability is far overdue in your business - as you so clearly demonstrate.


I find it amusing though that people like you, who are the first to bitch when someone complains about how the military does their jobs, or President Bush does his, are more than willing to tell me how to do mine.
Would you like to say something about my mother as well? These personal attacks and leap-of-faith assumptions make me wonder how someone of your level of maturity could ever become a teacher - let alone consider themselves good at it.
Your forget the axom - the customer is always right. You seem to forget that parents are your customer - even if you have the corner on the market.
Then you try dragging Bush and Iraq into the conversation? How pathetic.


Not obsolete, just not useful to actually measure knowledge and progress. So listen closely B0zzy, there'll be a test later.

Here we have a test:

1. 2+4 =?
a) 6
b) 5
c) 2
d) Myrth

What does that actually tell me? That the student knows the answer? But how did he get to it, can he actually DO math, or did he guess? Did he count on his fingers and toes? And if the student got it right, was this an improvment? Did he backslide? Again, it says NOTHING.

Except what the right answer is.

2. Name the two houses in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet:

Does answering this mean the student actually knows the play? Can tell me why its important in Western lit? Can tell me the major plot lines and why they were important? Can tell me why Shakespeare wrote it the way he did? Could I know, from this question, if my students can take this play and apply it to current movies and see where the simularities and differences lie?

Or could they only just tell me the names? I wouldn't even know if they read the damn play from this.

Testing gets about MAYBE 3% of a curricula. So what do I do with the other 97%? If, like our automaker, I am paid by how well someone drives my car, not the car itself; perhaps I would find out what the test would contain. I might then force any potential drivers to drive the same sets of circumstances over and over again. I may even remove things from the car that are not needed in the test to focuss more on making my car as test proof as possible. Don't have any tests on driving in bad weather? Well, screw putting on all wheel drive. Why bother? Don't have test questions talking about Huckleberry Finn beyond who wrote it, why teach a book that is a cornerstone of American lit?

Way to dodge the question - You still have not demonstrated how you propose to measure knowledge better than testing. Maybe you could explain how someone knowledgeable about a subject would not be able to demonstrate so with a test on said subject? Or how someone with no knowledge of it could score any other way then poorly. The whole point of teaching IS to teach the test. I doubt there is ever going to be a practical need to determine the coordinates of the vertex of y = 6x2 - 14x other than to pass a test. Nor is there a way to consistently get the correct answer without knowing the subject. Math is ALL ABOUT teaching the test. Are you suggesting that math is as obsolete as testing?


Test teachers? Great! I can study all about English to my hearts content and then some. I can spit out facts about grammar and parts of speech, I can name all the major and minor plays of Shakespeare, I can even recite the opening lines of Canturbuary Tales. But you cannot SAY with anything approching certain, how I will teach that. Will I be inovative, or will I just put the facts on the board and demand that my students memorize them.

The same could be said of doctors, nurses, lawyers, Realtors, CPAs, insurance agents, stockbrokers... Yet they take continued education and get tested regularly - in fact they cannot even call themselves such until they pass a test. Would you want a doctor who couldn’t pass the test?

(Also, I am far from a grammar Nazi, but when you are trying to tell people what a great teacher you are it might be prudent to run your posts through a spell-check first – particularly the part when discussing your English and grammar competence. Not a cheap shot – just a suggestion.)

What is wrong with asking students to memorize facts? Isn't that a large part of what you are supposed to do in school - learn facts? If that teacher gets measurable results from their students doing that then great. If not, then they won't be a teacher for long... Innovation which does not produce measurable results isn't very useful. Innovation which does deserves rewards.

Want proof of this, B0zzy? Look at Japan. They have been teaching English for years. For years, the goal has been to pass the entrance exams for university and nothing more. Those tests (until this year) didn't even contain a listening portion. They were grammar rules only, and nothing practical. The result is that many Japanese students have gone to college, but they have a nation that cannot readily respond to "Would you like some fries?"

So what you are saying is that people who don’t even speak English know more about it’s grammar and mechanics than the students you teach. And that is supposed to make you look good?

How would a portfolio system work better? By taking actual work over a period of time, I can see trends within the data. I can see if a teacher is making quality lesson plans and carrying them out. From studying student work, I can see if students are actually understanding the lessons, or are failing to. For those who are failing, perhaps we can see if they start to understand more, or not. Do students remain at a flat undertanding throughout the whole year, or are there improvements, hwoever small?

These cannot be tested with a damn scantron. The reason scantrons are liked is because they are easy and quick to do, and they can be pointed to by politicans looking to get re-ellected "Look! Tests scores are up!"

So, question, Which is the best way to determine student comprehension of materials? a) Standardized testing b) portfolio work c) Myrth
I bolded the only part I need to. Your plan includes testing. (unless along with being a teacher you also are a talented mind reader.) A portfolio has value, but is worthless if you cannot test progress. You can buy a portfolio of great companies, but it it does not make money it is useless. You must be able to measure it's progress on a regular basis.

Way to dodge the question - You still have not demonstrated how you propose to measure knowledge better than testing. Maybe you could explain how someone knowledgeable about a subject would not be able to demonstrate so with a test on said subject? Or how someone with no knowledge of it could score any other way then poorly. The whole point of teaching IS to teach the test. I doubt there is ever going to be a practical need to determine the coordinates of the vertex of y = 6x2 - 14x other than to pass a test. Nor is there a way to consistently get the correct answer without knowing the subject. Math is ALL ABOUT teaching the test. Are you suggesting that math is as obsolete as testing?

You miss the point, as usual (might want to go report me in Moderation for that). The point isn't that students who know the material would do badly. The point is that students who don't know the material could study for the test, do well on the test, but have absolutely no comprehension. They haven't actually learned anything. They've memorized some facts long enough to regurgitate them, and then, when they are no longer useful, they forget them.


(Also, I am far from a grammar Nazi, but when you are trying to tell people what a great teacher you are it might be prudent to run your posts through a spell-check first – particularly the part when discussing your English and grammar competence. Not a cheap shot – just a suggestion.)

And here is a cheap shot. Perhaps you should take a better look at your own posts before criticizing the grammar and spelling of others. You really do not want someone to correct all your posts. Believe me. I've noticed.


What is wrong with asking students to memorize facts? Isn't that a large part of what you are supposed to do in school - learn facts? If that teacher gets measurable results from their students doing that then great. If not, then they won't be a teacher for long... Innovation which does not produce measurable results isn't very useful. Innovation which does deserves rewards.

No. That is not what you are supposed to do in school. You are supposed to learn. Not memorize facts. I can memorize credit card numbers. Is that learning? If you gave me your credit card for 10 minutes, I could memorize it. I would have "learned" a fact. Do you really consider that the equivalent of understanding the causes of World War II? Or understanding mitosis? There's a world of difference between learning and memorizing, and standardized testing makes students memorize, not learn.

I know I'm gonna be feeling this tomorrow, but it seems I can't get to sleep without replying.

Huh? You've taken this analogy so far it really no longer makes any sense. I think what you are trying to say is that a car maker shouldn't be paid according to the ability of the car drivers who buy their car. I think. More accurate would be to discuss a driving school. If their students consistently fail the driving test and fail to get a license then yes, it would make sense to pay their instructors less. Your analogy is not accurate since the driver never has contact with the carmaker - unlike a student. The student IS the product, or car, not the driver. The education cannot be separated from the student.
No, you misunderstand the analogy. The point being that I have no real control over the "products" (which, BTW, is a very insulting term to label humans). I see them, at best, maybe 3 hours out of a week, from August to June (less breaks for Christmas and Easter), for one year. I haven't been involved in how they were raised, their home life, and so on. I may have wonderfully well designed lessons that have reached 85% to 90% of my students, but I may have a student currently being abused at home, or an ESL student, or a whole host of other problems, but you demand that I be paid upon how that student performs as compared with students who have good home environments and so on and so forth. Paying the automaker by how well the driver drives the car, not by how well the car was made.

Welcome to the real world. That is EXACTLY how things work in my workplace. Any client can 'fire' me by taking their business elsewhere. (which does affect my income) For true incompetence I can be dismissed or even lose my license. No tenure in the real world. Parents don't have the option of choice when it comes to their children's education - at least - not moderate and low income parents.
OH MY GOD! You have invoked the real world. How I tremble at being unable to respond to the real world. After all, schools have no connection to the real world. We only produce everyone in it. :rolleyes:

If I had as low a regard for my customers as you do of yours (the parents) I would be quite unemployed. Your arrogance is evidence of the trouble with the US education system. Accountability is far overdue in your business - as you so clearly demonstrate.
Make up your mind; are my students or my student's parents my customers? See, the problem is that education ain't a product. How do you sell it? How do you box it? It affects everyone differently. I don't have a low opinion of parents, I have a low opinion of people who assume that somehow because they went through school, they know all there is to know about education.

BTW, I'm not talking of customers leaving your store, I mean how would you enjoy it if I got random people together, and THEY evaluated you for your next pay raise? They may like your product, but may find fault with how you got your product built. Do they know WHY you build them the way you do? No. But, because they buy your product, they MUST know more than you do.

Would you like to say something about my mother as well? These personal attacks and leap-of-faith assumptions make me wonder how someone of your level of maturity could ever become a teacher - let alone consider themselves good at it.
Pot, meet kettle, I'm sure you'll have a loving relationship.

Your forget the axom - the customer is always right. You seem to forget that parents are your customer - even if you have the corner on the market.
Wait a minute, in testing, I'm trying to find out who is WRONG! Could you settle on a POV and keep with it?

Again, I'm not here to sell you lemony fresh sherbet, I'm here to educate kids. We've treated schools like assembly lines for a very long time, and it isn't working. Now you tell me that instead of that model, I should treat schools as if they were Wal*Marts.

And you say I'm dreaming.

Then you try dragging Bush and Iraq into the conversation? How pathetic.
Did I mention Iraq? No, don't think I did. I mentioned how quick you have been to jump on anyone who dares state that they think the military or President Bush isn't doing it right, but you're quicker to jump in here and start in.

Way to dodge the question - You still have not demonstrated how you propose to measure knowledge better than testing. Maybe you could explain how someone knowledgeable about a subject would not be able to demonstrate so with a test on said subject? Or how someone with no knowledge of it could score any other way then poorly. The whole point of teaching IS to teach the test. I doubt there is ever going to be a practical need to determine the coordinates of the vertex of y = 6x2 - 14x other than to pass a test. Nor is there a way to consistently get the correct answer without knowing the subject. Math is ALL ABOUT teaching the test. Are you suggesting that math is as obsolete as testing?
Way to not read the post. I take it you just hit reply first? You know, we have many companies in the US set up to help students with the SAT and ACT tests. They help raise the points received by a good margin. They don't actually teach the materials, they teach the blood tests and how to take them.

Constantly get the correct answer? No (well, actually yes given that it is possible to randomly guess correctly), but again, as I showed, tests do not always allow for me to see what the hell the student what thinking when they got that answer. You think Math is just test taking? PLEASE go to your nearest university, walk into the Math department and state that. I'm sure they could use the laugh. Math tests are POINTLESS unless you know how a student got the answer. Why do you think "SHOW YOUR WORK" is embedded in most Math homework?

And yes, you did fail. I could read the Spark Notes for Romeo and Juliet and never actually read the play, but pass the test on it.

The same could be said of doctors, nurses, lawyers, Realtors, CPAs, insurance agents, stockbrokers... Yet they take continued education and get tested regularly - in fact they cannot even call themselves such until they pass a test. Would you want a doctor who couldn’t pass the test?
And teachers have to constantly get educated as well. We also have to pass many tests. I had to pass a test to get into teacher education. I had to pass a test to get out of teacher education. I had to pass tests for each of my subject matters. As a teacher, I am required to take so many college level classes and so many in-service classes as year.

Bet you didn't know that did ya? What did you think teachers did over summer?

(Also, I am far from a grammar Nazi, but when you are trying to tell people what a great teacher you are it might be prudent to run your posts through a spell-check first – particularly the part when discussing your English and grammar competence. Not a cheap shot – just a suggestion.)
I was trying to get the reply out to you before lunch ended and I went back to my classroom. Sorry. I'll make sure to run it through Word for you this time.

BTW, I never claimed to be a great teacher, just that I know more about education that someone who's last experience with the public school system was in high school over a decade ago.

What is wrong with asking students to memorize facts? Isn't that a large part of what you are supposed to do in school - learn facts? If that teacher gets measurable results from their students doing that then great. If not, then they won't be a teacher for long... Innovation which does not produce measurable results isn't very useful. Innovation which does deserves rewards.
Facts would be great, if my students were bound for a job as guests on Jeopardy. However, it's taking knowledge and using it which is important. Fact memorization does NOTHING, and shows NOTHING.

Look up Bloom's Taxonomy of Knowledge, memorizing and spitting out facts is the lowest level of education. Evaluation, something very important in this world, is the highest. My job is to stimulate students to reach THAT.

If I wanted facts, I'd consult a bloody encyclopedia.

So what you are saying is that people who don’t even speak English know more about it’s grammar and mechanics than the students you teach. And that is supposed to make you look good?
I teach in Japan. But here's the tricky part, a Japanese student may know more names of parts of speech, but the native speaker can use them. The Japanese student can diagram a sentence, the native speaker can write plays.

Which is better in the real world?

I bolded the only part I need to. Your plan includes testing. (unless along with being a teacher you also are a talented mind reader.) A portfolio has value, but is worthless if you cannot test progress. You can buy a portfolio of great companies, but it it does not make money it is useless. You must be able to measure it's progress on a regular basis.
Testing is a tool; however we have long since known that it is not the end all be all tool that you state it is. Portfolios are the way to measure the progress. They would include *gasp* tests when appropriate, papers, and other student work. Actually, many high schools are now requiring senior portfolios, or senior projects to allow a complete measurement of what the student has learned and accomplished during his or her years at school. It's a far better yardstick than the SAT.

They are the high school equivalent of a Master thesis, which you'll note, the awarding of that does not involve a multiple choice test.

:D

Time to bring up that stupid ass?

Sorry you just lost my ear quoting that simpleton.....
He lost my ear by using that damn :rolleyes: in every single friggin' post.
Anyone who feels the need to be that patronising (especially about a topic they obviously haven't a clue about) instantly loses my respect and interest.

Stossel's logic is just flawed.

Well, that's true. ;)

Belgium's system is free market, America's is socialist.

Hold on, now. This is what Stossel says, but I just want to make sure everyone is clear on this point. Belgium's system, from everything I have read about it, sounds more like market socialism than market capitalism. All schools pay the same salaries to teachers, negotiated by the national teachers' union. The government sets all sorts of rules about what schools may and may not do. And all schools get the same amount of money per student, this amount being decided by the government.

The difference between market socialism and market capitalism, for practical purposes, is this: the Belgian schools compete for students; private American schools compete for wealthy students.

OR one member of A is better than one member of B, therefore ALL of A must be better than all of B.

Well, on the face of it his comparison is solid: he compares an American school that is arguably among the best, with a Belgian school. The first half, at least, is acceptable... if it turns out Belgian schools are better than the best American schools, then it follows that Belgian schools are better than all American schools. Of course, he doesn't give us much information on his Belgian test case....

Below is an interesting description of the Belgian system, in more detail. Compare it to Stossel's and draw your own conclusions.

http://alphashrugged.blogspot.com/2006/01/re-stossel-and-belgian-education.html

You miss the point, as usual (might want to go report me in Moderation for that). The point isn't that students who know the material would do badly. The point is that students who don't know the material could study for the test, do well on the test, but have absolutely no comprehension. They haven't actually learned anything. They've memorized some facts long enough to regurgitate them, and then, when they are no longer useful, they forget them.
Gasp! How dare they! Liek you I remember everything I ever studied in school. What? You dont? You must have had some shitty teachers teaching the test then.
I woud report you on the moderation forum, but there is no rule against being a dufus so you really have broken no rules. (besides, since when have the moderators given a rip about fairly enforcing the rules? I just enjoy watching the circles they and ya'll make with the wagons)
Now, back to my example before - there is no way to do the math problem I provided without actually understanding how to work the formula. You are holding an empty point - tests do measure knowledge and they do it well. Any argument to the contrary would be foolish. I though you above that - I was mistaken.


And here is a cheap shot. Perhaps you should take a better look at your own posts before criticizing the grammar and spelling of others. You really do not want someone to correct all your posts. Believe me. I've noticed.

well, once I start claiming that my grasp of grammar and English are flawless and I am perfectly capable of teaching it you may complain with total justificashun. Till then - ya'll can smooch my bad-grammer poor spellin arse. I'm not the one who boasted I don't need to waste my time learning that stuff in order to teach your children.


No. That is not what you are supposed to do in school.
Converting my limited statement into a universal one is something I thought beneath you. Psyc! No I didn't. It is totally you! Gawd I can't believe you made it that easy. I never said memorizing is what you are supposed to do in school. Now take your straw man and go home. Hey.. are those breasts? You made a straw woman! You weirdo!


You are supposed to learn. Not memorize facts. I can memorize credit card numbers. Is that learning? If you gave me your credit card for 10 minutes, I could memorize it. I would have "learned" a fact. Do you really consider that the equivalent of understanding the causes of World War II? Or understanding mitosis? There's a world of difference between learning and memorizing, and standardized testing makes students memorize, not learn. You can't learn without memorizing. Nor can you pass a well designed standardized test without learning. Back to my math example - yet again. Math and science are the two areas we need most improvement in. You and your circle gang default to history and literature becuase it is easier to hide there - but you cannot hide the fact that accountability terrifies you. The though of having to answer for your results is something you want to avoid at all costs. Responsibility is something you expect other people to assume for you. Meanwhile our students fall further behind - particularly in math and science and we wnd up having to import our doctors and export our tech jobs because not enough people in the US are educated enough to do those jobs ourselves. But hey! We certainly know how WW2 started - just watch Leno take it to the streets to see how well our schools were doing BEFORE accountability!

.
Ohio NERVUN. Konichiwa.

After reading your post it would seem we agree on far more than we disagree. I frankly lack the energy to respond to such a long post right now. Been a long day.

The primary point of disagreement is not that I think tests are 'the end all be all' as much as I think accountability for results has long been neglected in our education system, there is not enough competition, and testing is a valid benchmark to measure students progress over their educational careers.

Our analogy has us both confused. Neither of us anymore seem to know if we're talking about students, parents, cars or the UAW. I think that's funny.

Sayonara

Now, back to my example before - there is no way to do the math problem I provided without actually understanding how to work the formula. You are holding an empty point - tests do measure knowledge and they do it well. Any argument to the contrary would be foolish. I though you above that - I was mistaken.
There isn't? Wow, what have I been missing out on. And here I thought that since multiple choice questions provide the bloody answer, I have a very narrow range of possibilities. I may guess and get it right (four choices, that's a 25% chance). I may do the problem wrong, but derive the right answer (It's happened before). There's actually many ways of doing so, but I'd never know because I don't see the student's work, I see the answer on the scantron. Hell, they may have even cheated and just copied the answer.


well, once I start claiming that my grasp of grammar and English are flawless and I am perfectly capable of teaching it you may complain with total justificashun. Till then - ya'll can smooch my bad-grammer poor spellin arse. I'm not the one who boasted I don't need to waste my time learning that stuff in order to teach your children.
And who did? Kindly stop attempting to put words in my mouth. I know that's your favorite "debating tactic", but really now.

Or point out just where I said I never needed knowledge of English to teach it. Just show me that. I'd love to read it.

You can't learn without memorizing. Nor can you pass a well designed standardized test without learning.
Bullshit. You can, and people have. Those SAT/ACT companies teach how to narrow down the answers so that you can pick the best ones, even if you are not sure of the answer.

Back to my math example - yet again. Math and science are the two areas we need most improvement in. You and your circle gang default to history and literature becuase it is easier to hide there - but you cannot hide the fact that accountability terrifies you.
Again, I call bullshit. I have stated how a good accountability system would work, but you don't seem to want to actually deal with it; you prefer to state, again, how teachers are running scared.

So let's go to Math and Science. General actually shows how wonderfully just memorizing facts is meaningless. Look at every single Goddamn thread on evolution. These kids have been to school, they were taught to memorize the theory, but they don't understand it. If they did, we wouldn't be getting such brilliant comments about how since evolution cannot state what happened before the Big Bang, the theory is bunk. We wouldn't be getting rants about how since it's a theory, it is not true. Nor would we be getting posts that show no understanding of the scientific method and how it applies to their own lives.

Math is also more than memorization. Memorizing a multiplication table or vast amounts of formulas will not help you actually chose and apply them if you don't understand them. If I'm making a budget, I need to know which goes where, do I add or subtract here? Multiply or divide? It sounds so simple, but memorizing 2+2=4 doesn't help with knowing WHERE that goes, and why.

And tests cannot show me that you DO know where it goes.

The though of having to answer for your results is something you want to avoid at all costs.
No, what most teachers ask for is a fair method to actually judge what we do.

When doctors are reviewed or taken before a board, they are before other doctors who understand what is good medical practices, procedures, what should have happened, and can then evaluate what went wrong and if it is the fault of the doctor or something beyond his/her control.

Military personnel are reviewed by the men and women over them who understand the rules and regulations they live, and die, by.

Scientists are judged by peer review, peers who understand the field, the methods, and the terminology.

YOU are demanding that I be judged by a test, that I'm not taking, that isn't even measuring student thought and understanding, just facts.

But hey! We certainly know how WW2 started - just watch Leno take it to the streets to see how well our schools were doing BEFORE accountability!
Those who do not know history...

Ohio NERVUN. Konichiwa.
おはよございますB0zzyくん。　お元気ですか。
えええ...　あなた日本語かわいいですね。

Are you done now?

After reading your post it would seem we agree on far more than we disagree. I frankly lack the energy to respond to such a long post right now. Been a long day.
But you could respond up above... hmm...

The primary point of disagreement is not that I think tests are 'the end all be all' as much as I think accountability for results has long been neglected in our education system, there is not enough competition, and testing is a valid benchmark to measure students progress over their educational careers.
Accountability would be welcomed, but not through standardized testing. And I am still waiting to hear just how competition (which there is a lot in schools anyway) would fix the problems within the system.

Testing is just a tool, but the current push is to set up these tests to be end all be all's. I currently teach in a system that has these types of tests and I see what it leads to, which is why I am speaking out against it.

Sayonara
じゃ...　僕の頭痛い...　

The next time a Bush gets elected President, I'm moving to Britain.

Gasp! How dare they! Liek you I remember everything I ever studied in school. What? You dont? You must have had some shitty teachers teaching the test then.
I woud report you on the moderation forum, but there is no rule against being a dufus so you really have broken no rules. (besides, since when have the moderators given a rip about fairly enforcing the rules? I just enjoy watching the circles they and ya'll make with the wagons)
Now, back to my example before - there is no way to do the math problem I provided without actually understanding how to work the formula. You are holding an empty point - tests do measure knowledge and they do it well. Any argument to the contrary would be foolish. I though you above that - I was mistaken.

Tinfoil hat aside, once again, your density prevents you from understanding the obvious. You must not have had good teachers in school. They probably just taught to the test rather than teach you critical thinking.

There most certainly is a way to do the math problem you provided on a standardized test without actually understanding how to work the formula. A standardized test is multiple choice. You automatically have a 25% chance of getting it right on most of those tests even if you've never taken a single math class in your life. With a little luck, you could pass with flying colors without having the slightest idea what the test was about. If you've got a mild idea, you could eliminate a couple of choices and increase your odds. Let me provide an example. Tell me which option you think better tests a student's understanding of a math problem.

1. 5x + 2y = 50, if x=4, then y=?
a. 4
b. 7
c. 10
d. -3

OR

1. Solve 5x + 2y = 50 if x=4.

Which one do you think more adequately tests a student's understanding?



well, once I start claiming that my grasp of grammar and English are flawless and I am perfectly capable of teaching it you may complain with total justificashun. Till then - ya'll can smooch my bad-grammer poor spellin arse. I'm not the one who boasted I don't need to waste my time learning that stuff in order to teach your children.

Well, you better make sure your grammar and spelling are flawless if you're going to criticize someone else's. Otherwise you just look like a hypocritical ass.


Converting my limited statement into a universal one is something I thought beneath you. Psyc! No I didn't. It is totally you! Gawd I can't believe you made it that easy. I never said memorizing is what you are supposed to do in school. Now take your straw man and go home. Hey.. are those breasts? You made a straw woman! You weirdo!

If you believe that standardized tests are the best way to judge student understanding, then what you are saying is that students should learn facts for regurgitation. Standardized tests have no way of testing reading comprehension, or testing their understanding of ideas and concepts. It tests facts, dates, etc. Memorizing. I'm sorry if you don't see that, but just because you're unable to dissuade yourself of your unreality doesn't mean that I've set up a straw man, boss.


You can't learn without memorizing. Nor can you pass a well designed standardized test without learning. Back to my math example - yet again. Math and science are the two areas we need most improvement in. You and your circle gang default to history and literature becuase it is easier to hide there - but you cannot hide the fact that accountability terrifies you. The though of having to answer for your results is something you want to avoid at all costs. Responsibility is something you expect other people to assume for you. Meanwhile our students fall further behind - particularly in math and science and we wnd up having to import our doctors and export our tech jobs because not enough people in the US are educated enough to do those jobs ourselves. But hey! We certainly know how WW2 started - just watch Leno take it to the streets to see how well our schools were doing BEFORE accountability!

Actually, most test scores (you know, those things that you love so dearly) show that students' greatest shortcomings are in history and English. We are falling behind and math and science as well.

And, as usual, you miss the point. Teachers are not afraid of accountability. They welcome it. What they do not welcome is accountability to people like yourself who don't have the slightest idea what accountability should be. Nowhere else are people subject to outsiders in the way that you want teachers to be. When doctors are reviewed, it's not by the standards that I think are important; it's by the standards agreed upon by other doctors, people who know what they are talking about. You want to set up this system where people who don't know how to teach are going to tell teachers how to teach. It's unreasonable. Much like your blind hatred of educators.

And I fear nothing because I'm not a teacher, son. I'm just smart enough to realize I don't know enough about teaching to tell a teacher when he's done a good job.

In the State of the Union, Mr. Bush said he wanted to encourage more math and science in order to compete with the Chinese and Indians. (Both of which will pass the US in the number of engineers soon.) But a week later he submits a budget that cuts spending for education by 1/3. Just wondering if someone could explain this paradox.

WTF? He planning to bring down the US to his education level?

The next time a Bush gets elected President, I'm moving to Britain.

TG me. I'll pay for your one way ticket.

...

1. 5x + 2y = 50, if x=4, then y=?
a. 4
b. 7
c. 10
d. -3

...

Not to be an ass, but none of those options are correct. :p

That notwithstanding, I agree with you completely. In Sweden there are virtually no standardized tests. Most testing here is done with the student actually writing the answer to the questions. Essay questions are common.

There is one major exception: Högskoleprovet ('College Exam'), an optional test that, with a high grade, could give a free pass into college even if you don't have the school grades. It is, however, graded on a curve, making it less probable for people to "luck" their way in. Even these tests are under debate, because they don't really give a measure of how well a student would do in a specific education.

The next time a Bush gets elected President, I'm moving to Britain.

I concur Get me a ticket too. He's probably thinking of a way to get elected again neway altho I might wanna go to Germany

Not to be an ass, but none of those options are correct. :p

That notwithstanding, I agree with you completely. In Sweden there are virtually no standardized tests. Most testing here is done with the student actually writing the answer to the questions. Essay questions are common.

There is one major exception: Högskoleprovet ('College Exam'), an optional test that, with a high grade, could give a free pass into college even if you don't have the school grades. It is, however, graded on a curve, making it less probable for people to "luck" their way in. Even these tests are under debate, because they don't really give a measure of how well a student would do in a specific education.

HAH Germany Education is free even Universtat but not sure bout tests

Programs to be cut within the Department of Education by President Bush:
The Educational Technology State Grants (NCLB)
Even Start
Vocational Education (Voc Ed) State Grants and Voc Ed National Activities
Upward Bound
GEAR UP
Talent Search
Tech Prep State Grants
Smaller Learning Communities
The Safe and Drug-Free Schools (SDFS) State Grants
Parental Information and Resource Centers
Arts in Education
Elementary and Secondary School Counseling
Alcohol Abuse Reduction
Civic Education
National Writing Project
Star Schools
School Leadership
Ready to Teach
Javits Gifted and Talented Education
Exchanges with Historic Whaling and Trading Partners
Comprehensive School Reform
School Dropout Prevention
Mental Health Integration in Schools
Women’s Educational Equity
Academies for American History and Civics
Close-Up Fellowships
Foundations for Learning
Excellence in Economic Education
Demonstration Projects to Ensure Quality Higher Education for Students with Disabilities
Underground Railroad Program
The State Grants for Incarcerated Youth Offenders
Perkins Loan Cancellations
Leveraging Educational Assistance Program (LEAP)
Byrd Scholarships
Thurgood Marshall Legal Educational Opportunity
B.J. Stupak Olympic Scholarships
Supported Employment
Projects with Industry (PWI)
VR Recreational Programs
VR Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers
The Teacher Quality Enhancement program,

Major Program Reductions in the Department of Education proposed by President Bush:
The Perkins loan program -664 million
The Teaching American History program -70 million
The Physical Education program -46 million
The Mentoring program -30 million

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/savings.pdf

And there you are, boys and girls. President Bush would like to remove $3.5 billion from education and will do so by cutting out these programs.

Since the OP never did address which programs are being cut, and therefore how they would actually effect local schools, now we know.

Oh, and Synks, B0zzy, I'm still waiting for one of you to please explain how vouchers, privatization, and the like are going to fix schools.

And tell me, since when has testing obsolete? There is no better way to measure knowledge. For God sake I HOPE they are teaching what is on the test. That is the frikkin point. It is obvious that what the vast majority have been 'teaching' normally is crap.

No, no, no, no, just no.

I remember the first time I had to learn for a standardized test. In my Trigonometry class (remember, trigonometry) we took two weeks out of the year to study statistics. Statistics, in a trig class. I went from Pythagoras to polling just so our school wouldn't look bad in math scores.

I know that tests are a good measure of knowledge, but that's only if the tests are checking material the students actually learn. The tests I had to take in high school were crap, and the results never were on par with my actual grades.

For example, I had a C average in all of my hs math classes, but recieved 98% marks in the standardized test for math. I also got a 5 (highest score possible) in AP English, but was failed in reading for the tests.

Oh, and btw, to the earlier posters that were pointing out how federal money is such a small part of education, I'd like to share what just happened to Kentucky's education budget. Even though it only makes up 1.5% of the state budget, cuts in education came to roughly 30% of our state's budget cuts for this year. Granted, it is a nice change to actually have a budget, but since this will probably result in the fourth straight year of double-digit tuition increases at my public college, I find myself wishing our schools had more money.