February 01, 2006
I guess this is what "pro-education" means

The Democrats in the legislature are simultaneously proposing to (a) eliminate the WASL and (b) pay for two years of college all students, which would have to include those who couldn't pass the WASL.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 01, 2006 09:36 AM | Email This
Comments
1. The democrats have shown time and again that they are against any meaningful education reform. They would rather send our youth off to face an increasingly competitive world without the skills needed to survive, all the while assuring them that theie economic future is secure.

It's called lying, and the democrats should stop doing it to our children.

The republicans come up with a bi-partisan bill (the NCLB act) that ensures that everyone gets a good education. It even goes as far as to let each state determine what is and isn't a good education, as long as it is measurable. But what happens when it starts to go in force? The democrats start backtracking.

Don't worry, as well see at the end of this election cycle, they're all bark and no bite.

Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on February 1, 2006 09:44 AM
2. Yeah, that's nice. Since we can't give them a "basic education" in grades k-12, let's just pay for 2 more years...so they can learn what they should've learned in the last 13 years...
It doesn't cost very much to give kids a basic education, but that's not what the Libs would have people think. Perhaps the method of educating is misguided...why don't they pick an education model that actually works, instead of trying to spend more money or re-invent the wheel?

Posted by: SweetNSassy on February 1, 2006 10:10 AM
3. NCLB is not about better education. It's about beating down schools so that Republicans can privatize one of the last public institutions so they can make money. The money spent on creating tests and giving and scoring tests is sure making one group a lot of money. Are taxpayers really getting the best educational bang for their buck? NCLB is just so the government can say schools are "failing" (even if 90%+of their students pass the test, they are still failing by government standards if they don't continue progress) so they can move to institute vouchers and charters.

Bush said, at the very beginnning of NCLB, that he was worried about American children competing against other students in other countries. He wanted to know how our students stack up against other countries. And did he put out one national test so we could know? Of course not. There's 50 different tests, all of varying quality (yeah, sure, go out there and figure "measurability" and tell how you know, in any definitive way, how American schoolchildren are doing as a whole).

The interesting thing to me is that the feds left it up to states to decide how to figure out getting students to take the tests. Only about 9 states have it a graduation requirement and many states don't have any opt-out language in their assessment laws.

Posted by: westello on February 1, 2006 10:15 AM
4. BUT...IT'S...FOR THE...CHILDREN...

Posted by: TACOMA PHLASH on February 1, 2006 10:18 AM
5. Westello:

Schools absolutely SHOULD be privatized; before the advent of so-called "public" education, when schools were a local, community endeavor (and pre-compulsory attendance laws, which are nothing more than a transparent revenue enhancement maneuver), we had a higher rate of literacy and better educated citizens. Government schools have been a DISASTER. And give me someone with a profit motive over a so-called "public servant" do-gooder with a political agenda ANY TIME.

Posted by: libertarianobserver on February 1, 2006 10:19 AM
6. Paraphasing westello "A 90+% literacy rate is something any Washington State bank would be proud of." Sorry westy, but conservatives believe our educational system should be doing better than 90%.

Posted by: huckleberry on February 1, 2006 11:31 AM
7. This post is for you NL...

Hey Westello...if our “public” schools are doing such a fine job why do we have a 51% high school graduation rate...avg. S.A.T. scores falling below 1000...why do 75% of our high school grads need remedial instruction when they get to college...why is there a 21% graduation rate among those that enter college and only a 2% post grad rate?

Compare this with Washington State home schooled children...98% high school graduation rate...S.A.T. avg. test scores over 1250...less than 10% need remedial instruction…and they have an 85% college graduation rate and 24% post grade rate.

Westello... if this can be accomplished by “Domestic Incarceration Survivors” and their “Legalized Rapist,” just what you think trained, motivated and rewarded professionals could do?


Posted by: TACOMA PHLASH on February 1, 2006 11:39 AM
8. The reality about the public indoctrination...Education system is that the left, pronounced as Communist/Socialist, agenda is actually to take children away from their community as long as they can so they can raise generations that believe that the Socialist government has some value. That is what the Soviet Union and all other Comm/Soc governments tried to do. Public Indoctrination is nothing less than anti-democratic. If you cannot, as a parent, decide how you want your children taught then we are not free, we are just being controlled by the Politburo.

Posted by: Fixit on February 1, 2006 12:20 PM
9. I have seen this idea percolating around in Dem/Educrat circles for over a year now.
It is inherently dangerous.
Whether you like the military or not (and many in Seattle/KC have made their position clear) the hard fact is simple: 50-70% of new recruits for all the Services come from the 18-20 year age group. If these people are taken out of the system for "free college," then the available pool of eligible people willing to enlist will shrink to levels where our military will not be able to defend the country. (The Post Baby-boom pool has been declining anyway to the point where it is a strategic concern.)
Why...you may ask?
Essentially, young men and women in the 18-20 year group are ready for something new. Travel, training, education benefits, a job, adventure...these are some of the reasons they enlist. But by the time young men and women reach 21 their perspective begins to change and the overall willingness to enlist decreases.
I can think of no faster way to destroy America than implemented this policy.

Posted by: Diogees on February 1, 2006 12:22 PM
10. Making college degrees as worthless as a high school diploma doesn't sound like a bright idea.

I remember classes in my senior year of high school being filled with students that didn't care about learning - they goofed off, complained, and distracted the rest of the class. College was a huge differnce since most that that were there actually wanted to be there and the class clowns that were just doing their time where gone.

The problem with the two years of college proposal is that it feeds into the mindset that everyone should go to college. It ignores the fact that there are many that simply don't have the motivation or desire to do so. Proposals such as this will do nothing but overinflate college attendance, taking away time and resources from students that really want and have the ability to learn.

Posted by: Darth Dogbert on February 1, 2006 12:31 PM
11. The pool for enlistment is actually deeper in Washington as more and more of the children are not taught the basics to survive in a competitive society. Their only resource is getting a government job --- the military! Perhaps in a military environment (with direct and real punishments for infractions) they will learn to read and write on more than just a remedial level.

A sad theme for Washington.

Posted by: HappyGoLucky on February 1, 2006 12:33 PM
12. Follow the money.

I'll call this the "Washington State Non-Education Death Spiral" WSNEDS(tm).

1. Two more years of school.
2. More State Employed Union Teachers jobs created.
3. Job growth praised by the politicians.
4. More Union contributions to Pork Creating Liberals.
5. Students still not tested against students from other states to see the value of the education they are receiving.
6. Repeat step #1.

Posted by: Marmstro on February 1, 2006 12:34 PM
13. Westello,

The NCLB is about ensuring that the poor black kid who happens to live in a white neighborhood gets as good an education as the rich white kids he goes to school with.

We had an interesting thought in the FWPS district. We had about a 40% pass rate on the WASL as a district. Looking at our demographics, it's apparent that that 40% would've passed regardless of whether they went to school or not. (They have parents who care and are educated. Probably would've been better served by staying home all day.) It's that 60% that didn't stand a chance in the first place that we are short-changing by not requiring 100% pass rate.

If our schools can't educate a poor black child, why do we even waste money on them? They would probably be better off without public schools at this point.

Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on February 1, 2006 12:45 PM
14. I see their devious ploy! They will be sent to a community college for two years and THEN return to high school and re-take the WASL.

Posted by: john425 on February 1, 2006 12:59 PM
15. I note that the information about homeschooled kids. But I'm not talking about homeschooled kids (and just for your information, I'm unhappy with one of my child's middle school teachers and am right in the middle of exiting that student from her class and homeschooling for that subject); I'm talking about private and charters schools. Both of those have rates all over the place so just saying private is better is not a good argument.

I'm not getting Mr. Gardner's message. I agree that there are many schools not doing their jobs but punishing all the schools isn't the way to go. And I didn't mean 90% is good enough; I'm saying if you have a school that educates 90% of its students but can't reach the feds AYP (annual yearly progress) that doesn't make them a failing school. Apparently this is quite a problem in suburban Conn.

Posted by: westello on February 1, 2006 01:09 PM
16. HappyGL
I'll assume the sad theme you refer to is about education in general and not the recruiting issue. There is nothing sad about serving in the military. The pool is no deeper here because of education standards. Every recruit must meet certain education and testing levels.

A government job? Sure it is, and one that gives a young man or woman not ready for, or wanting, college, a good head start. Very much like an apprentice in a union. The military isn't a dumping ground for the uneducated. Uneducated soldiers get people hurt.

The soldiers I meet are sharp, intuitive, fun, and very cosmopolitan. Some will stay in for outstanding careers. Most get out after serving their enlistments and go on to other things...some even become teachers. I try to hire as many as I can. None have ever gone on to ask if I want to supersize my order.

As for infractions...yes, the military will not tollerate them. But so will any successful business. Try doing anything that is illegal, immoral or unethical where you work and see what your boss does.

Posted by: Diogenes on February 1, 2006 01:46 PM
17. WESTELLO…

I CAN HOME SCHOOL MY KIDS AND IF I FAIL SHAME ON ME...OR I CAN PAY (EXTRA MONEY) TO HAVE MY KIDS GO TO A PRIVET SCHOOL AND IF THE SCHOOL FAILS, I CAN FIRE THEM AND GO ELSEWHERE...

UNDER THE PRESENT SYSTEM, WHERE WE KNOW THE SCHOOLS ARE FAILING AND HAVE BEEN FOR 20 YEARS… WE CAN DO NOTHING BECAUSE THE UNIONS MONOPOLY CONTROLS THE PROCESS AND IT IS NOT IN THEIR BEST INTEREST...

WITH CHARTER SCHOOLS, IT IS A WIN / WIN VENTURE BECAUSE THE TAX DOLLARS FOLLOWS THE STUDENT, IF A PARENT WANTS TO SEND THEIR CHILD TO A PARTICULAR SCHOOL AND THAT SCHOOL FAILS… THAT PARENT CAN FIRE THAT SCHOOL AND GO ELSEWHERE...

THIS WILL WEED OUT THE BAD TEACHERS, PRINCIPLES AND THOSE SCHOOLS THAT DO NOT PERFORM WILL FOLD. THE ONES THAT PERFORM WILL THRIVE. END OF STORY!!!

THAT IS HOW SUPPLY AND DEMAND WILL SAVE OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM!!!.

Posted by: TACOMA PHLASH on February 1, 2006 02:38 PM
18. WESTELLO…

TO EXPAND ON MY STATEMENT…IF YOU HAD A CHILD THAT WANTED TO BE A PLUMMER, CARPENTER, AUTO TEC., AIR PLANE PILOT, ISLAMIC CLERIC OR WHATEVER… THE MONEY WOULD STAY UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE STUDENT AND PARENTS …IT WOULD BE THERE TO SEND THEM TO A SCHOOL THAT WOULD EDUCATE THE CHILD IN THE MANNER THE PARENTS OR STUDENT FEEL IS BEST… THAT’S REAL PRO-CHOICE!!!

Posted by: TACOMA PHLASH on February 1, 2006 02:51 PM
19. Funny, I always thought the Dems were "Pro-Education Spending," not "Pro-Eduction...."

Posted by: Marc on February 1, 2006 03:01 PM
20. I love people who talk down education and then can't spell. I hate people who think it's "different" to type in all caps and force others to read it.

Posted by: westello on February 1, 2006 03:22 PM
21. Hebetudinous.

Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on February 1, 2006 04:10 PM
22. WESTELLO…

KNOW ONE IS TWISTING YOUR ARM TO LOG ON AND READ ANYTHING...IF YOU DO NOT LIKE READING ALL CAPS OR WHAT I WRITE JUST SKIP ON BY...I DON’T MIND...I DON’T CARE!!!

Posted by: TACOMA PHLASH on February 1, 2006 05:33 PM
23. WESTELLO…

AS FOR MY SPELLING I MAKE TYPE-OS, I THINK FASTER THAN I CAN TYPE. YOU MUST LOOK AT THE WEBSTER’S UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY SOMETIME...TAKE THE WORD KNOW AND NO. NO HAS THREE DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS...KNOW HAS 19. THERE CAN BE SUBTLE DIFFERENCES IN THE WAY THAT ONE CAN INTERCHANGE THEM…ITS CALLED MIRTH

Posted by: TACOMA PHLASH on February 1, 2006 05:51 PM
24. Diogenes - Yes, the sad theme was for the state of our education. No, I do not think the military is stoopid. In fact, I believe our military is one of the highest trained, most intelligent, and best equipped in the history of the world.

I was simply making a joke. The joke was twofold: 1) Perhaps kids could get an education in the real world by working hard and diligently in the military instead of slacking off in school, since no drill sargeant would let them do otherwise, while (some) of our teachers could care less; and 2) that without any skills at all, at least the uneducated kids could dig slit latrines and do otherwise physical labor while they learned.

Admittedly, this joke wasn't very good, and not for serious consumption, and if it came off like that to anyone else, especially anyone who is, or has been, in the military, I apologize.

Posted by: HappyGoLucky on February 3, 2006 09:10 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?