Romney: Our "Third World" Education problems can only be solved by (you guessed it) . . . more Federal intrusion
In what was to be his defining speech on public education to the Chamber of Commerce today, Governor Mitt Romney had the opportunity to say something new, important, and visionary about public education.
He didn't.
Instead, predictably attacking teachers' unions as pretty much the sole source of our educational problems, Mitt characterized millions of American students as receiving "a Third World education."
His prescription for fixing that?
Not abolishing the US Department of Education (he used to hold that position, but dropped it).
Not No Child Left Behind (he used to support that initiative, but "evolved").
Nope, Mitt offers us worn out platitudes and--I couldn't make this up if I tried--a more stringent application of the principles behind Race to the Top:
Need I say that only one candidate--Libertarian Gary Johnson--offers anything different.
He'd like to get the Feds out of controlling our public education and let states/localities do their own thing.
And so would I.
Hey, Ron Paul supporters! Is this what you signed on for?
He didn't.
Instead, predictably attacking teachers' unions as pretty much the sole source of our educational problems, Mitt characterized millions of American students as receiving "a Third World education."
His prescription for fixing that?
Not abolishing the US Department of Education (he used to hold that position, but dropped it).
Not No Child Left Behind (he used to support that initiative, but "evolved").
Nope, Mitt offers us worn out platitudes and--I couldn't make this up if I tried--a more stringent application of the principles behind Race to the Top:
 |
| Mitt Romney: Race to the Top is good, but needs steroids. |
Romney continues to support the federal accountability standards in the law, however. He also has said the student testing, charter-school incentives and teacher evaluation standards in Obama's "Race to the Top" competition "make sense" . . .Of course, he said the words that chill my heart (and then used more code for more Federal strings in the next paragraph):
He continued: "President Obama has made his choice, and I have made mine. As president, I will be a champion of real education reform in America."
Romney said he would let low-income and disabled students use federal money to attend public schools, public charter schools and, in some cases, private schools. Federal funds could also be used for tutoring or digital courses.In other words, Mitt would be exactly the same Federal education disaster the George W Bush (Tweedle-NCLB) and Barack Obama (Tweedle-RTTT) have been, another bureaucrat convinced that America's teachers, students, parents, and school boards are simply to f--king stupid to be left in charge of education.
Need I say that only one candidate--Libertarian Gary Johnson--offers anything different.
He'd like to get the Feds out of controlling our public education and let states/localities do their own thing.
And so would I.
Hey, Ron Paul supporters! Is this what you signed on for?
Comments
Thanks, just thanks.
But no, I don't disagree.
Why do you think I am going to try to force the education debate in Delaware into another direction?
By the way, if what they do is "ed reform" what is a good catch-phrase for giving public education back to the districts?
Or was it more nonsense hyperbole?
Local control is too overused. I kind of like Ms. Scheinberg's phrase: ed deform in reference to he other side
Maybe you can enlighten us just what Brown did, John.
Brown outlawed de jure segregation and effectively overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Vouchers is a direct highway to permitting resegregation as parents can take local monies and cross any line necessary to get their kids away from those kids.
In other words, they violate Brown not one iota since there is no, and will be no, de jure segregation. If vouchers "piss" on Brown, then what does CSW's entrance test for admittance do? Take a massive dump on it?
"For every dumb thing I've said, there are literally thousands of dumb things I haven't said"
... yet
I agree, but the de jure prohibition has created a distaste for de facto as well. Vouchers will send us there for certain. Just look at the Delaware Charter Law. Essentially the same thing. And yes CSW's entrance exam does take a big dump on Brown v. Board from where I sit. And the difference between "these" and "those" is income and parental involvement, both beyond the child's control. Bu you already know that.
DC voucher program and DC schools are awful, by virtually any measure.
That's usually what people say when they have no clue. DLers exhibit that trait in abundance, pandora. It's well known. At least you can't ban and censor thinking people here.
But de facto segregation is by no means necessarily invidious. Like how kids separate themselves in lunch rooms, for instance. Not to mention, de facto segregation had nothing to do with Brown.
Vouchers will send us there for certain.
Based on what, precisely?
And the difference between "these" and "those" is income and parental involvement, both beyond the child's control. Bu you already know that.
That's right. I do know that. And even though I'm not necessarily a huge fan of vouchers, I'm also certainly not in the camp that any sort of segregation automatically equates to something negative. If that were the case, then Delaware State would be implementing as many "diversity" measures as UD does. The question remains: How will vouchers certainly lead to segregation? And even if it does, why is this automatically a bad thing?
Which measures? Why? Please fill me in.
As far as segregation leading to negative results, while it's only correlative, Delaware is an emerging example.
But, I did not see any mention of the voucher program in that article. Second, of course there's a lot of work to be done. Even if the voucher were mentioned, it arguably wasn't around long enough to see a sizable effect.
If you are in the camp of not necessarily invidious then you can't be argued out.
Do you disagree with that statement -- that all segregation is not necessarily invidious?
on the other observcation: since the schools are awful, and they had vouchers, I am drawing a straight line through those two ppints.
on the other observation: since the schools are awful, and they had vouchers, I am drawing a straight line through those two points.
Well, of course a federal law doesn't mean anything when it comes to actual facts and research surrounding whether "diversity" actually leads to academic achievement. And there's considerable debate as to whether diversity actually has any tangible effects on achievement. The National Assn of Scholars did a study that concludes there are very little-to-no benefits. Also consider (as I've asked before elsewhere): if diversity was such an educational panacea, why do HBCs -- Historically Black Colleges -- still exist? After all, of the need for a good mix of races/ethnicities is needed for maximum educational benefits, it stands to reason that these universities should immediately incorporate proportionate representation in its student body.
on the other observcation: since the schools are awful, and they had vouchers, I am drawing a straight line through those two ppints.
That's quite a statement considering the voucher program had ended a few years ago, and less than 2,000 total kids were enrolled. That's precisely why I wrote "it arguably wasn't around long enough to see a sizable effect."
The argument for diversity as expressed in Brown was legal/moral and not student achievement based per se. My argument is more about the net effect of diversity on the entire population, not on narrowing achievement GAPs. Also, it's not based on proficiencies on tests either. It's about, in many cases, immeasurables like character, respect, tolerance, civic duty, and a whole host of skills that help children integrate into the diverse society in which we live. Segregated schools just cannot offer that experience, basically by default.
As for the vouchers, the dissolution of the program certainly suggests it wasn't ameliorative. I won't say it was causative, but vouchers just rode side saddle in a crappy school system and did not make it better.
both diversity and homogeneity are positive forces, as long as you don't go to far toward either extreme.
*Sigh* There was NO argument for "diversity" in Brown, John. It also had nothing to do with academic achievement. You brought that point into it. That is touching more on the Gratz and Grutter cases, which is perhaps what you based your "legal" argument for "diversity."
I only point all this out because, like your initial statement about Romney "pissing" on Brown, too many people do not know what the case was actually all about. It's what they think it's about. And that's usually wrong.
this argument is getting really repetitive and boring.
Then tune out, Tom. It's easy to do. Like turning the channel.
No, it means the program funding was canceled in 2009 by our current president and then-Congress.
The program -- which has served more than 3,700 students, most of them black or Hispanic -- lost favor under the Obama administration and the Democratic-led Congress. President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan support public charter schools as alternatives to badly performing traditional public schools, rather than vouchers. In 2009, the program was suspended, no longer accepting new students though allowing those already using vouchers to keep them through graduation.
A 2010 report by the Education Department, the final evaluation of the voucher program ordered by Congress, said, “There is no conclusive evidence that the [the program] affected student achievement.”