Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: > I think the program is a clever attack on the public school systems.
Could it be an attack on failing schools, poor teachers? Do you think our present public school system should be operated to benefit teacher unions at the expense of the pupils? Do you think only the Democratic political structure has all of the answers for public education? > > It is clever, because it disguises de-funding and disruption > (disruption arising from multiple sources, including, > screwing up the regular curricula) > as an attempt to 'improve' things, thus being 'pro-child' > > My impression of 'school evaluations' is that the *science* > is not great, but there are some things that have been > learned over the last 30 years. Further: what is known > by experts was certainly far from the minds of Republicans, > --who are anti-numerical, as part of being anti-science-- > and was thoroughly ignored by politicians who decreed the > programs. On what basis do you charge that all Republicans are "anti-numerical" and somehow "anti-science"? Isn't this a rather all-inclusive assertion for about half of the U.S. population? Would you concede some Republicans ARE "numerical" and "science-oriented"? > > It has been my impression that the experts in the area were > just about uniformly appalled at what has come about; and > are pretty-much resigned to letting the thing collapse of its > own failures. It might achieve a little bit positive, by showing > how bad some schools can be. > - On the other hand, I have not gone out of my way to read > about it, so I could be mistaken. Yes, I think you may be very much mistaken. Some public schools turn out superb graduates, but many others need help. Kids in schools with poor teachers and low expectations deserve better IMHO. What is your solution? What is the Democratic Party solution other than hiking teacher salaries or advocating teachers spending less time in the classroom? > > Why did W get his GOP allies to fund a foregone failure? > - They do seek to divert funding to private schools, which > is where children of BIG contributors are educated. > - Public school teachers remain a workforce that is often > unionized, and the teachers are often vocal, active, > influential, and Democratic; so it is in the Republican interest > to wipe them out. (See the parallel, somewhat, in the > Presidential insistence that the new office of home security > should not allow union protections; he was willing to dump > the legislation rather than allow unions.) Do you truly believe homeland security will be enhanced somehow by employee unionization? Are you saying big contributors only come from private schools? Are you charging Republicans want to end the public education system? Do you believe the only competent statisticians are Democrats? It seems you have quite an agenda! BTW, I am not a Republican, but don't think demagogues spouting ideological histrionics are particularly helpful. . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
