So with the absence of proper Internet connection in my hotel, I read this NYT article about new educational reform:
***********.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/education/14child.htm
I got struck by this phrase: "President Obama would replace the law’s requirement that every American child reach proficiency in reading and math, which administration officials have called utopian, with a new national target that could prove equally elusive: that all students should graduate from high school prepared for college and a career."
Since it is my profession to quantify things, what do you think it means "that all students should graduate from high school prepared for college and a career"??? Which college and which career?
I would like to ask you to refrain from speaking in slogans in this thread....

This talk about "Education Reform" is nothing more than politicians' double talk designed to further put Feds in control of the education system in the country. And that is usually followed by spending more gazzilions of our tax dollars on God knows what with very little to show for.

This is just continuation of Bush's idiotic idea of "no child left behind" nonsense.

"Education Reform" is (or should be) simple.

1. Abolish Federal "Department of Education".
2. Get the Federal Government out of the education business. How the hell did this country managed to educate its young people before 1979, when "D of E" was established?
3. Revert all of the resources (in the form of tax breaks) used by USDofE to the states. It is states' responsibility to educate its students.
4. Let folks at the state level petition their governors, senators, assemblies regarding any education related issues.

__________________
Новые фотки - у дочери на дне рождения. 16 лет. Very BIG DEAL !!!

And in general (and this applies to almost every governamental agency in the Federal Government). If you ask any Senator or Congressman, most would tell you that they were elected to their office "to do more" - whatever that means.

This is exactly ass-backwrds. Americans are sick and tired of these politicians. Come next November we'll be electing people to the Federal offices, who will promise "TO DO LESS". And if they don't keep their promises - they'll be out on their ass in 2 short years.

__________________
Новые фотки - у дочери на дне рождения. 16 лет. Very BIG DEAL !!!

"no national standards at all?"

No! No Federally mandated or set standards are needed. Standards are not achieved because some bureacrat in Washington wrote it up in some book. They are achieved through vigorous competition at the local level. And that means competition for students among schools.

In other words, the real "education reform" can only happen when gutless polititians find courage to standup to the powerful teacher's unions and demand improvements at the LOCAL levels.

And the only wayTHAT will happen if we vote these people out of office and vote someone else in.

__________________
Новые фотки - у дочери на дне рождения. 16 лет. Very BIG DEAL !!!

Ira.

I will go back to my original post. I do not buy this premise because I do not buy the necessary corollary that people in this country were being educated worse prior to 1979 than they are being educated now.

This is nothing more than one "Education Lobby's" talking points

__________________
Новые фотки - у дочери на дне рождения. 16 лет. Very BIG DEAL !!!

i think NCLB was a great idea, just not very well implemented..
it's clearly something to build on, not to scrap.
i don't see anything wrong with national standard, considering all the kids have to take SAT anyway - and it's a standard test in order to get into college.

__________________
Человек, который почувствовал ветер перемен, должен построить не щит от ветра, а ветряную мельницу

I don't understand one point with Natan's point. Ok, suppose that we destroy federal Dept of Education and give all responsibility to the states. Then what? Wouldn't the same story repeat at the state level (some bureaucrat...) with state agencies that are responsible for education???

I actually liked federal standards on math and reading with tests and all. One of the main objections was that "teachers would teach to the test" -- how can you do that if you don't know what would be on the test (w/in the particular educational program)???

"Wouldn't the same story repeat at the state level (some bureaucrat...) with state agencies that are responsible for education??? "

NO. Governments at the state and local levels are much closer (and thus much more sensitive) to the needs of their constituants. The government "closest" to the people is much more responsive to the people. This is the idea behind the entire Federal structure of this country envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

The Federal Government was never meant to participate in the affairs (such as education) that are clearly domain of the states.

And I will go back to my original point. How did this country manage to educate its population prior to 1979?

Can someone demonstrate that since "D of E" came into being american QUALITY of education has improved?

__________________
Новые фотки - у дочери на дне рождения. 16 лет. Very BIG DEAL !!!

NO. Governments at the state and local levels are much closer (and thus much more sensitive) to the needs of their constituants.
Aha. And how is that related to quality of education??? What if all the constituents want is to teach Koran, for example?