Skip to main content

Delaware's NCLB waiver: Deck chairs on the Titanic

Gee, Arne Duncan decided that the Federal government imposing Race to the Top will no longer also impose its predecessor, No Child Left Behind, on Delaware.

Of course, the price of an NCLB waiver is total acquiesence to the RTTT agenda.

And here--in a single lesson--is why RTTT needs to be shown the door as well:  RTTT identifies "under-performing" schools for special attention [Partnership Zones].

Notice that almost all our under-performing schools have a common denominator:  high poverty.

So instead of helping solve the problem of extending equitable educational opportunities to poor kids, the rhetoric of RTTT simply labels their schools as the problem--they are "under-performing."

That Arne Duncan--what a way with words and Federal regulations.

Almost enough, isn't it, to make you wish the US Department of Education and the 6.6.% of the funding it grudgingly provides Delaware would just . . . go away.

Comments

KilroysDelaware said…
The reason NCLB failed in Delaware was because DSTP failed and was flawed from day one! DSTP was rolled out Spring 1998 prior to NCLB 2001. Delaware made no effort to modify DSTP to better align it with NCLB goals. DSTP was was heavy on student consequences and less on really addressing teacher accountability and issues including parental "engagement" that is needed to help children to succeed. DSTP was hatch via a Delaware business roundtable agenda and even-though it failed he same group of reformist were allow to help write Delaware's RTTT application . plan.

With this wavier date from past years and current years forwards will be skewed! Not apples to apples.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...