Go Grant! Southerners should have got an Anglican minister to command I guess :D
Education today vs. Yesteryears
-
We have a national directive that states what we are allowed to teach and what we are not allowed to teach. It was implemented in 1993 and later Ted Kennedy (Senator) wrote an act known as the No Child Left Behind Act that reinforced the legislation signed into law in 1993 by the Congress and President at that time and gave it teeth. (Now you have the audacity to slow down so the students have time to understand what you are trying to teach, the government can pull all your federal grants which will effectively shut down your school because states give matching grants. If you match $0 then you get $0 from the fed and $0 from the states.)
Basically, we can tie the stupification of our children back to 1993. Between 1960 and 1993 we were not really making them educated, but at least we were not actively trying to make them less educated like we are today.
-
My wife used to work in a day care and she said that even they felt the effects of No Child Left Behind.
That being said lets try to avoid the politics to keep this topic from getting locked.
Thanks,
LT -
How can we talk about education and not refer to the Education Reform Act of 1993 and No Child Left Behind (2001? or was it 2002?)?
Those two pieces of legislation made this nation the stupidest (defined as least educated) of all first world nations! If we had to innovate the light bulb, nuclear power, assembly lines or any of the other American innovations from 1850-1950 today, we’d all be doomed!
What changed? The two acts listed above.
How do we fix it? Repeal the two acts listed above.
-
Whoa there, Jen, I still think there are some aspects of the US that support the future. One aspect of the US is that we respect intellectual property, which is a great reason to apply yourself toward innovation, although in many arena this is under attack. Because of our patent and copyright laws, innovators accross the globe want to come here. Although that has its own side effects, not all positive.
Incidently, has anyone else noticed the article ad at the right that invites us to inquire about the “Aniversery Addition Special Event?” I found that to be Shakespearean.
Fortunately, some kids are gifted, and if we support those gifted kids in the sciences we will still have home grown innovators and inventors. My son has a gift for algebra, the number crunching part of math. I have a gift for the geometry part. I nurture his gift and I support him as he overcomes those areas in life where he is not gifted. Another gift we have given him is proper behavior training. Because all his teachers say he is such a well behaved boy, they want to help him overcome his problems.
We can’t rely on society to do our parenting jobs for us. We are only now seeing the depth of our folly in the things going on now in the public arena.
-
I’m not saying patents and copywrites are bad, but let’s also keep in mind those laws pre-date World War II. I’m referring to the laws that hamstring teachers (like me who want to teach kids how to do division, but are forbidden to do so) which seems to be designed to make our kids less educated (ie stupid) than others in other nations.
-
I’m with you there Jen. I was just wanting to add a little upbeat conversation to the mix.
I’d like to know, are teachers more upset about pay issues or behavior issues in the public schools?
-
Well, that’s not really what I think is an issue. I don’t know anyone who went to work as a teacher for the money (although the payscale does get pretty high if you just get a degree or two).
I think the biggest issue is being told NOT TO TEACH instead of being allowed to help the children excel at learning.
-
So Jen, how much of the non-teaching do you think is from the, IMO, misguided efforts to make schools more ‘girl-friendly’ and to make sure that girls ‘catch up’ to boys?
For more info on what I’m refering to see The War on Boys by Christina Hoff Summers.
-
So Jen, how much of the non-teaching do you think is from the, IMO, misguided efforts to make schools more ‘girl-friendly’ and to make sure that girls ‘catch up’ to boys?
For more info on what I’m refering to see The War on Boys by Christina Hoff Summers.
I believe a good portion can be attributed to misguided ideas that girls are some how inferior to science and mathematics than boys are just like I believe a good portion can be attributed to misguided ideas that children need to be “given” passing marks instead of what they earn to make them “feel good about themselves.”
The funny part is, in my Master’s Level mathematics courses, we girls out number you boys by a significant margin. I didn’t count, I could on Monday if I remember, but there is only a couple/few boys (who show up) and at least a dozen girls (again who show up.) So I don’t think there’s a significant shortage of girls in the “hard courses” (as I define them math, science, statistics, economics and accounting).
But that’s just my opinion.
-
@Cmdr:
How can we talk about education and not refer to the Education Reform Act of 1993 and No Child Left Behind (2001? or was it 2002?)?
Those two pieces of legislation made this nation the stupidest (defined as least educated) of all first world nations! If we had to innovate the light bulb, nuclear power, assembly lines or any of the other American innovations from 1850-1950 today, we’d all be doomed!
What changed? The two acts listed above.
How do we fix it? Repeal the two acts listed above.
NCLB is controversial and has its criticisms. I understand what the purpose of it was, success of which is debatable, but the states still retain the authority of what is taught. I think that’s important to note. I’m not sure where Clinton fits into all that, but please explain if you care to.
As far as an Education Reform Act of '93, I fail to identify one unless you are speaking specifically of Massachusetts.
-
Clinton’s education bill was the Education Reform Act of 1993. Just like Bush 43’s education bill is the No Child Left Behind Act. Just about every president has an education bill just like they write a budget, a crime bill and a foreign policy.
NCLB was just an expansion of Clinton’s original plans to be honest. Clinton’s plan mandated that students be able to use calculators on the exam, NCLB mandated that students HAVE to use a calculator on the exam. Clinton’s plan mandated that children be taught division with a calculator. NCLB mandated that students can only be taught division with a calculator. Clinton’s plan mandated that special needs children be taught anonymously in the classroom with regular children (so they won’t get hurt feelings or something) NCLB mandated that they be taught in the same classroom, but that a second instructor (Special Ed certified) also teach with the regular instructor as well.
You can pretty much go line by line (though they are in different orders) and see how the 93 education bill is just a weak version of NCLB. But that is hardly surprising, considering who actually WROTE the NCLB act. (Just because you sign it does not mean you wrote it. There’s a hint.)
As for what NCLB did do well, it, uhm….it required teachers to take a professionalism exam in order to retain certification. Uh…oh yea, it made it much easier to fire a teacher and for a government to take over the administration of schools. Not sure what else it succeeded at doing to be honest.
-
I’m not sure where Clinton fits into all that, but please explain if you care to.
actually leave out the Clinton part. remember nothing political.
NCLB was just an expansion of Clinton’s original plans to be honest. Clinton’s plan mandated that students be able to use calculators on the exam, NCLB mandated that students HAVE to use a calculator on the exam. Clinton’s plan mandated that children be taught division with a calculator. NCLB mandated that students can only be taught division with a calculator. Clinton’s plan mandated that special needs children be taught anonymously in the classroom with regular children (so they won’t get hurt feelings or something) NCLB mandated that they be taught in the same classroom, but that a second instructor (Special Ed certified) also teach with the regular instructor as well.
just keep it on education reform issues w/o the Clinton thing.
-
Clinton is no longer political. He’s not a politician, he’s a US Citizen. :P
Okay, so I’m splitting hairs, I know. Just roll with it. hehe. No? Bah, yer no fun!
-
The problem is obvious… perceived ‘Clinton bashing’ will cause others, to start with jabs about other ex presidents and so on…becoming political.
-
Robert Heinlein had an essay about just such in one of his books. it compared his grandfathers 9th or so grade education with what was current. this was written in the early '80s if I recal correctly.
I know that in my life time I have seen the education of people in this country grow steadily worse. My former room mate is 26 and when we would have discussions on historical subjects there was just so much that we covered in elementary school that was news to him. Josh was an A student in high school so it isn’t like he is dumb either. What is even worse is I can see the difference in education between him and current graduates.
Jenn if I am not mistaken you teach high school correct? I don’t know what troubles me more; that you are having to teach division in high school or not be allowed to teach it. I can say that having spent most of my life in highly mathematically inclined construction trades what graduates today is a joke. Geometry is not taught and forget about fractions as well. I would honestly equate a twelfth grade education with about a fifth or sixth grade one from 30 years ago.
-
@Cmdr:
Clinton’s education bill was the Education Reform Act of 1993. Just like Bush 43’s education bill is the No Child Left Behind Act. Just about every president has an education bill just like they write a budget, a crime bill and a foreign policy.
This Act doesn’t exist. Furthermore, presidents don’t write bills, they sign them. And based on that, none of what you said following is worth responding to since it’s your typical irrelevant jab at someone you obviously don’t like with no proof supporting your claim. My, what Rush has done for this country.
@Imperious:
The problem is obvious… perceived ‘Clinton bashing’ will cause others, to start with jabs about other ex presidents and so on…becoming political.
I’m sorry, but that’s all she was doing - Clinton bashing. It wasn’t relevant to the discussion or even true.
But some of us can actually have a serious conversation about politics, with proof to bear, and avoid it becoming into a pissing match.
-
Jermo: I have to agree and close this thread.
Your correct! Thanks for pointing what is probably obvious to some.
Sorry Jennifer. I trust you can come up with a new thread of a related topic, but this is too …political.
Suggested Topics
