Interesting stuff in the news today...
First, there was this bit about how teachers are going to sue over No Child Left Behind. The basic argument is that the bill requires schools to do certain things to improve teaching ... but then the federal government doesn't pay for the necesseties to make that happen, requiring the siphoning off of additional federal funds.
Two thoughts on this....
Good luck. The federal government paid for the interstate in the same way. Sure, they paid for 90% of construction - but that remaining 10% was tremendously expensive and ate up state/local infrastructure budgets.
Second, is more of a general reaction to NCLB. The law is really badly executed, and is more callous than helpful. But I cannot help but think that it is really on the right track. Education should be better in this county. Part of this is certainly about structural adjustments - more money for teachers and physical plants, and a more equitable means of funding (as in: let us move beyond the property tax). But I think the idea of *accountability* that is in NCLB is not far off.
I mean, public education is ultimately a service that voters are asking for. It is an arm of the bureaucracy. It is highly specialized, and highly variable (students doing well depends on more than teachers and administrators - it has to do with funding, parents, individual talents/dispositions of students and so on). I'm also sympathetic to protecting teachers (tenure is a good thing; but while I'm sympathetic to the teacher's unions, they obviously have an interest in minimal oversight & limited power of administrators). But it seems that some mechanism of not only getting feedback, but also acting on that information is not out of sorts. Especially for primary/secondary education - which is foundational. Higher education is a slightly different animal, I would argue (and not just out of my own self-interest). Anyway, I don't have an answer .. I just think the left dismisses NCLB too quickly (though Ted Kennedy did support the bill). There's something there that we have to talk about more seriously as a society.
The second interresting thing in the news is the trouble John Bolton is facing. The nutshell: Bolton is a creep, Democrats are opposed, and Republicans are not starting to like the whiff they've caught.
What is great is that while Scott McClellan and some of the Republican leadership are griping about what Democrats are doing on the committee ... when in actuality the committee is working JUST the way it should.
How so? Well, first the committee is signalling to other members of Congress. Democrats hear some bad stuff about Bolton - they kind of pass it around. Other members take notice, and start asking their own questions - b/c members tend to trust their fellow representatives on committees, as part of an information heuristic. Committees are about specialization - experts use their information to figure out what a good direction is, and other members tend to take notice.
But committees are also about partisan power. Members find themselves pulled between numerous forces while serving in the legislature: first, they want to please constituents and get re-elected, second - they want to advance a party agenda, and third there is a legitimate interest in good policy (addressed above). In this case, it seems that Republicans who are wavering on Bolton are putting policy above party. To some degree that could be true - who wants a UN ambassador that no one will talk to AT the UN? But there is also a partisan angle - does the party really want to bear responsibility for a breakdown in UN-US relations that lead to some bad foreign policy consequence? Of course not.
It's just fascinating that even as these bodies do their job, we piss and moan that they're not working at all. (In fact, members regularly run *against* Congress - and no one holds the body as a whole responsible while individual members run willy-nilly pleasing constituents. But that's a whole other story). Anyway, I have nothing really to add in terms of substantive analysis of the Bolton affair. I just think it's a great mix of major news attention and committee action merging - there's something sweet about the irony of everybody making out on this (the President can blame Democrats for good PR, and the Republican party/public as a whole is sure to not appoint a nutjub as an ambassador. The system at work - chaotic but rational).
First, there was this bit about how teachers are going to sue over No Child Left Behind. The basic argument is that the bill requires schools to do certain things to improve teaching ... but then the federal government doesn't pay for the necesseties to make that happen, requiring the siphoning off of additional federal funds.
Two thoughts on this....
Good luck. The federal government paid for the interstate in the same way. Sure, they paid for 90% of construction - but that remaining 10% was tremendously expensive and ate up state/local infrastructure budgets.
Second, is more of a general reaction to NCLB. The law is really badly executed, and is more callous than helpful. But I cannot help but think that it is really on the right track. Education should be better in this county. Part of this is certainly about structural adjustments - more money for teachers and physical plants, and a more equitable means of funding (as in: let us move beyond the property tax). But I think the idea of *accountability* that is in NCLB is not far off.
I mean, public education is ultimately a service that voters are asking for. It is an arm of the bureaucracy. It is highly specialized, and highly variable (students doing well depends on more than teachers and administrators - it has to do with funding, parents, individual talents/dispositions of students and so on). I'm also sympathetic to protecting teachers (tenure is a good thing; but while I'm sympathetic to the teacher's unions, they obviously have an interest in minimal oversight & limited power of administrators). But it seems that some mechanism of not only getting feedback, but also acting on that information is not out of sorts. Especially for primary/secondary education - which is foundational. Higher education is a slightly different animal, I would argue (and not just out of my own self-interest). Anyway, I don't have an answer .. I just think the left dismisses NCLB too quickly (though Ted Kennedy did support the bill). There's something there that we have to talk about more seriously as a society.
The second interresting thing in the news is the trouble John Bolton is facing. The nutshell: Bolton is a creep, Democrats are opposed, and Republicans are not starting to like the whiff they've caught.
What is great is that while Scott McClellan and some of the Republican leadership are griping about what Democrats are doing on the committee ... when in actuality the committee is working JUST the way it should.
How so? Well, first the committee is signalling to other members of Congress. Democrats hear some bad stuff about Bolton - they kind of pass it around. Other members take notice, and start asking their own questions - b/c members tend to trust their fellow representatives on committees, as part of an information heuristic. Committees are about specialization - experts use their information to figure out what a good direction is, and other members tend to take notice.
But committees are also about partisan power. Members find themselves pulled between numerous forces while serving in the legislature: first, they want to please constituents and get re-elected, second - they want to advance a party agenda, and third there is a legitimate interest in good policy (addressed above). In this case, it seems that Republicans who are wavering on Bolton are putting policy above party. To some degree that could be true - who wants a UN ambassador that no one will talk to AT the UN? But there is also a partisan angle - does the party really want to bear responsibility for a breakdown in UN-US relations that lead to some bad foreign policy consequence? Of course not.
It's just fascinating that even as these bodies do their job, we piss and moan that they're not working at all. (In fact, members regularly run *against* Congress - and no one holds the body as a whole responsible while individual members run willy-nilly pleasing constituents. But that's a whole other story). Anyway, I have nothing really to add in terms of substantive analysis of the Bolton affair. I just think it's a great mix of major news attention and committee action merging - there's something sweet about the irony of everybody making out on this (the President can blame Democrats for good PR, and the Republican party/public as a whole is sure to not appoint a nutjub as an ambassador. The system at work - chaotic but rational).
VIEW 5 of 5 COMMENTS
NCLB, however, I am repulsed by. You admire its accountability aspect, and I'm obviously fine with that. But that seems like a very minor plus that is outweighed by heavy minuses.
As far as I know, teachers are devoting a tremendous amount of resources (i.e., time, in the main) to preparation, which means that the exams better be fucking perfect--that's what the kids are studying for!
The program is geared towards math and science. This is problematic to an insane degree as it does not account for the simple psychological fact/common knowledge that many people have creative/artistic temperments. Does this mean they should not even try math and science? No, but they should have other aspects of their education (i.e., well-funded aspects) in which they can flourish: the arts, music, creative writing, etc.
Isn't the penalty for performance a restriction on funds? This assumes a rational, incentive-based behavioral frame, which I just do not buy into at all. The schools that are performing badly need the most help, not cutbacks. I don't think they'll simply "wise-up" and get their asses in gear because of the impending penalties. School that is performing badly: "Now you get less money, which means less teachers. Good luck on the exams next year!"
I think the underfunding of NCLB is part of the assault on the 20th century state and a strategy of class warfare. If public schools start hemorrhaging money and hence the quality of public education degrades, that certainly will make wonderful conditions for vouchers, won't it?
[Edited on Apr 23, 2005 12:01PM]