The competition for Harry Reid

[AFK]

I don't know, if I were a Nevadan, I'd be pulling the lever for "none of the above".  Angle may be bat-quano crazy nuts, but Reid is a spineless lump of fail.  I'd rather have some crooner from a Vegas martini bar in office at this point. 

[LMNO]

Apparently, Angle is a Christian Reconstructionist, who believes that the Rapture has already happened, and Christ will return once we have gotten the secular government out of the business that is supposedly under Christ's domain, and have established Biblical Law.

Reconstructionists prioritize reforming America into what they consider a godly country and bringing the legal structures of our country in line with Old Testament law, with a specific eye toward pushing the government out of all arenas they consider the sole province of church and family.

How this is any different from those who claim muslims want to establish Sharia in the US, I have no idea.

Anyway, to tie this in to the ongoing discussion, she wants to get rid of the DOE because she believes that education is a religious matter, and not subject to secular concepts.  Or regulations.  Or standards.

[Cain]

Unfortunately for her, Earth's gravitational pull still equals 9.80665 m/s2 and dense objects thrown at the head are still likely to cause brain damage, though in her case it may be hard to tell the difference.

[Doktor Howl]

Isn't that what accreditation accomplishes? 

Who is the accreditation authority, if not the DOE?

[LMNO]

And while NCLB and standardized testing have been greately mishandled, and are certainly weighed down with beurocracy and politics, the concept of making sure that all children are sufficiently educated is not a bad idea.

[Disco Pickle]

And while NCLB and standardized testing have been greately mishandled, and are certainly weighed down with beurocracy and politics, the concept of making sure that all children are sufficiently educated is not  a bad idea.

I don't argue against this concept. 

But standardized tests are little more than regurgitation of knowledge crammed into several months at the sacrifice of real learning.  Teachers now let other subjects fall by the wayside as they attempt to teach to the test to secure better funding for their school.

I don't know what the solution is, but the status quo is failing in a big way.

[Doktor Howl]

And while NCLB and standardized testing have been greately mishandled, and are certainly weighed down with beurocracy and politics, the concept of making sure that all children are sufficiently educated is not a bad idea.

Unless you're a republican or a libertarian, in which case you prefer an aristocratic approach.

NCLB was an abortion to begin with.  Standardized testing is shit.  Back in my day, we had ONE test...The Iowa Basics.  It happened once a year, and it was effective in determining what areas were in trouble.  It was basic math, English, etc.  It worked for decades.

Then we had NCLB, which forked over billions to standardized test-making companies that suddenly sprung into existence, and it hasn't done shit except allow the pinheads to point out that "We're spending more money on education than ever, and it's still failing."  They neglect to mention that this extra money is being given to certain people to make bullshit tests, not being used to fix the system.

[Jenne]

And while NCLB and standardized testing have been greately mishandled, and are certainly weighed down with beurocracy and politics, the concept of making sure that all children are sufficiently educated is not  a bad idea.

I don't argue against this concept. 

But standardized tests are little more than regurgitation of knowledge crammed into several months at the sacrifice of real learning.  Teachers now let other subjects fall by the wayside as they attempt to teach to the test to secure better funding for their school.

I don't know what the solution is, but the status quo is failing in a big way.

...so what would you use to quantify the results of what is being learned?  What litmus test do you think is better or more usable or flexible than what we already use?  How should we determine that students are learning the skill sets they need in order to survive?  Notice I didn't say "compete" or "succeed."

[LMNO]

And while NCLB and standardized testing have been greately mishandled, and are certainly weighed down with beurocracy and politics, the concept of making sure that all children are sufficiently educated is not  a bad idea.

I don't argue against this concept. 

But standardized tests as they are currently designed and promoted are little more than regurgitation of knowledge crammed into several months at the sacrifice of real learning.  Teachers now let other subjects fall by the wayside as they attempt to teach to the test to secure better funding for their school.

I don't know what the solution is, but the status quo is failing in a big way.

It is slightly more difficult to design a standardized test that does not encourage regurgitation, but it can be done.

[Doktor Howl]

And while NCLB and standardized testing have been greately mishandled, and are certainly weighed down with beurocracy and politics, the concept of making sure that all children are sufficiently educated is not  a bad idea.

I don't argue against this concept. 

But standardized tests are little more than regurgitation of knowledge crammed into several months at the sacrifice of real learning.  Teachers now let other subjects fall by the wayside as they attempt to teach to the test to secure better funding for their school.

I don't know what the solution is, but the status quo is failing in a big way.

...so what would you use to quantify the results of what is being learned?  What litmus test do you think is better or more usable or flexible than what we already use?  How should we determine that students are learning the skill sets they need in order to survive?  Notice I didn't say "compete" or "succeed."

How did we do it in 1962?

[Jenne]

And while NCLB and standardized testing have been greately mishandled, and are certainly weighed down with beurocracy and politics, the concept of making sure that all children are sufficiently educated is not a bad idea.

Unless you're a republican or a libertarian, in which case you prefer an aristocratic approach.

NCLB was an abortion to begin with.  Standardized testing is shit.  Back in my day, we had ONE test...The Iowa Basics.  It happened once a year, and it was effective in determining what areas were in trouble.  It was basic math, English, etc.  It worked for decades.

Then we had NCLB, which forked over billions to standardized test-making companies that suddenly sprung into existence, and it hasn't done shit except allow the pinheads to point out that "We're spending more money on education than ever, and it's still failing."  They neglect to mention that this extra money is being given to certain people to make bullshit tests, not being used to fix the system.

The actual framework of NCLB started out ok, it just ended up fouling up what was already working because no one built in the caveats that would keep that from happening.  It causes states like CA that already HAD a system for regulating what was going on in the classroom to back up, either tank the funding used for the one already in place or have them compete against each other, which confused not only school districts but also the teachers and classroom teaching that needed BOTH sets of funding to survive the ever-decreasing budgets.

Not to mention NCLB became one of the WORST unfunded federal mandates.

[Doktor Howl]

HEY, HOW THE FUCK DID WE DO THIS SHIT IN THE 60s? 

That was our best decade for public education, for the most part.  How did we get by without NCLB back then?

[Jenne]

And while NCLB and standardized testing have been greately mishandled, and are certainly weighed down with beurocracy and politics, the concept of making sure that all children are sufficiently educated is not  a bad idea.

I don't argue against this concept. 

But standardized tests are little more than regurgitation of knowledge crammed into several months at the sacrifice of real learning.  Teachers now let other subjects fall by the wayside as they attempt to teach to the test to secure better funding for their school.

I don't know what the solution is, but the status quo is failing in a big way.

...so what would you use to quantify the results of what is being learned?  What litmus test do you think is better or more usable or flexible than what we already use?  How should we determine that students are learning the skill sets they need in order to survive?  Notice I didn't say "compete" or "succeed."

How did we do it in 1962?

Personally, I don't want to go back to 1962.  I'd rather move forward...the fact that urban and segregated (and then desegregated) schools suffered EGREGIOUSLY through inadequacies in funding is a great excuse.  Folks think we have disproportionate funding system NOW--back in '62, it was horrifically bad, the difference in resources between white and "urban" schools.  ONE projector for films in a school of 500+ students, for example. 

The reason we have federal and state mandates, by the way, is because of those funding discrepancies back in the day.  It's SUPPOSED to ensure more equalization in funding.

[Jenne]

HEY, HOW THE FUCK DID WE DO THIS SHIT IN THE 60s? 

That was our best decade for public education, for the most part.  How did we get by without NCLB back then?

I challenge you to look at black and latino achievment back in those times.

Sure, white middle class students did awesome.

[Doktor Howl]

Personally, I don't want to go back to 1962.  I'd rather move forward...the fact that urban and segregated (and then desegregated) schools suffered EGREGIOUSLY through inadequacies in funding is a great excuse.  Folks think we have disproportionate funding system NOW--back in '62, it was horrifically bad, the difference in resources between white and "urban" schools.  ONE projector for films in a school of 500+ students, for example. 

The reason we have federal and state mandates, by the way, is because of those funding discrepancies back in the day.  It's SUPPOSED to ensure more equalization in funding.

Saw that one coming.  Okay, so we had two systems.  One worked, and one didn't.  The fact that one didn't means that no good ideas can be garnered from the system that DID work.

Because it was all funding, there wasn't a single literate Black person in America until the end of that decade.