Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

The Union Label...

Feb 23, 2004 12:30PM PST

There is no way for this Administration to fight terrorism if it feels that Americans who don't share its views are terrorists. I wonder how many groups this Administration is prepared to label as un-Patriotic, un-American, or as terrorists before November? I doubt that this "terrorist" label against the teachers union is going to win many votes for GW. This Administration continues to show its true colors and many Americans are beginning to realize that they don't like what they see...

Paige Denounces Teachers' Union...

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Education Secretary Rod Paige called the nation's largest teachers union a "terrorist organization" Monday, taking on the 2.7-million-member National Education Association early in the presidential election year...

The education secretary's words were "pathetic and they are not a laughing matter," said Weaver, whose union has said it plans to sue the Bush administration over lack of funding for demands included in the "No Child Left Behind" schools law."

More...

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re: Must be wonderful, (Part 2)
Mar 31, 2004 12:18PM PST

Hi, Bo.

No apology forthcoming, though I will say it sounds like we're both right. Sounds as if an interested district can get permission to use specially designed tests. But you didn't comment on my link to the Tennessean, which indicates that many teachers there are also complaining of similar effects on special ed. My guess is that most educational bureaucrats find themselves too busy to develop a test and get it certified. Besides, where do the funds come from to do so -- there's no Federal funding for developing such specialized tests, and there's no Federal effort to develop a natiowide version of tests for special needs kids, so large amounts of money would be wasted in duplicative test development across the nation. Bottom line -- there is a major problem with how special needs programs are in fact being affected by this new program nationwide.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
So typical of you.
Mar 31, 2004 9:11PM PST

In many ways.

First, rather than admit that you were wrong and alternative assessments are legitimate for special needs students, you say we were both right. That CANNOT BE! If alternative assessments are legitimate, then my wife's school district is in compliance with NCLB and she is not wrong.

Second, you turn it into another 'unfunded mandate' issue. Also not true. Alternative assessments are just another of the items in the whole pantheon of assessment tools that the schools are required to develope. The tests given to normal students are not furnished by the government, they are developed by the states and school districts. SDAAs and LDAAs are just another test to be developed.

Bo

(Still waiting on an apology, at least to Sandra)

- Collapse -
Re:So typical of you.
Apr 1, 2004 4:07AM PST

Hi, Bo.

Of course both being right is possible -- when you don't live in a yes/no, black/white world. If it's possible to have a specialized test to solve a problem, but the educational bureacracies either don't have the resources (time and $) or are unwilling to commit them to solving the problem from a strict interpretation of the law, then the law is having an adverse effect. How typical of conservatives to see issues in black and white, when the reality is a shade of gray.

>>The tests given to normal students are not furnished by the government<<
No, but there are funds available under
"SEC. 1002. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY GRANTS- For the purpose of carrying out part A, there are authorized to be appropriated ?
(1) $13,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
(2) $16,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
(3) $18,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(4) $20,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
(5) $22,750,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
(6) $25,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2007."

Those funds can be used to develop the test that 95% of the students are required to take, but there's no mention of using them to develop an alternative measure. And just because you don't think "unfunded mandates" a valid issue doesn't mean they aren't! But in this case, it's not even a mandate -- but you can't have it both ways. Whether the guidelines are so rigid they harm special ed, or local educational bureacracies are so rigid they won't develop the alternative approach that avoids the harm, the harm is happening in most cases, as witness the article from the Tennessean (which you have yet to mention).

This reminds me of "fights" that develop in the scientific community all the time. Two groups have similar but not identifcal data, and use them to devleop two conflicting models. A great proportion of the time, neither model is absolutely correct -- when established, the truth incorporates aspects of both models. That's the problem with George Bush's "my way or the highway" approach to the world, which to me your you message exemplifies.

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
NT Blow it out your a**, Dave.
Apr 1, 2004 4:46AM PST

...

- Collapse -
Great argument, Bo.
Apr 5, 2004 7:13AM PDT

Well reasoned and insightful.

- Collapse -
Re:Since the subject has resurfaced...
Mar 30, 2004 2:55PM PST

The teachers don't want to have their performance measured and monitored. Therefore, they always throw up this arguement that tests can't measure what they teach. They don't want to get boxed in on what they are teaching.

- Collapse -
Re: Since the subject has resurfaced...
Mar 31, 2004 12:31PM PST

Hi, KP.

>>Therefore, they always throw up this arguement that tests can't measure what they teach. <<
Sorry, but it's not just a smokescreen. If you teach one of the social sciences, or one of the sciences, or a foreign language, or one of the arts the tests do not measure what you're teaching -- they aren't designed to. That relegates those subjects to second class status. Furthermore, more and more schools are now having courses in how to take the test, and review sessions for the tests. And the time for those come from the "second-class" subjects. Unfortunately, what makes our nation economically competitive is not how well our workers do on "the basics" -- that's a given. But the Act's "accountability" only for "core courses" means that emphasis is being shifted from precisely the areas that our future entrepreneurship and creativity rely upon, most particularly the sciences and technology.

I was listening today to a piece on the NBC Nightly News about the launch of the new liberal talk radio network, showcasing Al Franken. The report mentioned that this was not the first such attempt -- that a couple of previous efforts, notably one featuring Mario Cuomo had failed, "largely because the message was too nuanced, which doesn't make for exciting radio." I interpret this to mean that a black/white worldview is more exciting and easier to grasp -- and apparently it doesn't bother conservatives at all that it bears little relationship to reality.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!


-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:What, guys.....
Feb 24, 2004 1:51AM PST

In today's climate, the term "terrorist tactics" shouldn't be bandied about lightly.

I believe the correct term is "exemplarary." At least according to the President.

Wink

- Collapse -
Yes, exactly. That is the issue here.
Feb 24, 2004 2:17AM PST

The economic viability or disability of various unions shouldn't be described in terrorist terms unless they are actually engaged in such.