The new plan for schools as stated by the Pres, is this, schools which teach the kids and whose kids pass the test will get goverment funding, those that don't won't.

Sounds fair, but is it?

Schools with few resourses and high teacher/student ratios, have more problem students then some school with all the latest teaching aids and low student/teacher ratios, In short those schools most in need of federal funding are the same schools that are certain to lose the funding while schools which do not need the funding will be sure to get it.


Perhaps I am wrong but this is how it sounded to me when Pres. Bush was telling about it. I do agree that schools must be accoutable for teaching but I can compare the dollars spent in different schools and clearly see the quality of education follow the same curve as the spending curve so what is to be done?

well, unfortunately, anything in the news that has any caption such as "Bush said" is one that I tend to skip right past. I hate to read the rants and ravings of a moron...

but you're right nathen. It would seem to make more sense, to give out money to those school districts where high teacher/pupil ratios, and low resources are proven, WITH the stipulation that results must be seen within some nominal time frame, such as two or three years perhaps... If no improvement, then the monies should be rescinded, since it didn't seem to make a difference in education anyway.. The real problem is in the metrics to be used, and for someone (or some group) to monitor that the schools do not simply gear their programs towards raising the levels of the metrics... but instead actually raise the level of education! That's the toughie...

Seems to me the way schools are funded could use a lot of work. Out where we live, the whole property tax thing is ridiculous and unfair,. adding to the problems of low income districts and low income individuals immeasurably. In NYC I don't even know how it works, but the corruption they've had there over the years is mind boggling, according to reports.

I haven't read anything recently about the Bush plan, but does it say how they'd deal with students in districts that didn't make the grade as far as funding is concerned?

See, this is what really gets me - liberals with knee-jerk reactions to whatever a conservative President comes up with, applying their own interpretation to what he has said biased by their own beliefs, rather than actually bothering to find out the facts. (edited to point out - I am specifically talking about Nathen in this instance. Pat and Arnie were just reacting to what he said....)

The plan he has signed gives more money to schools across the board - $26 billion more, not exactly small change. The only requirement is that the schools come up with a way of showing accountability. Basically, the schools have to come up with a way to test the children to determine whether or not scores are improving. And schools that fail to improve schools for 2 years in a row will actually be eligible for MORE money, not less. And in schools where the scores continue to lag after that, children from low-income families will be eligible for tutoring or to change to a different school.

Actually, I don't think much of the plan myself - I think it throws money at the problem without actually fixing anything. I'm a firm believer that children in poorly performing schools should be given vouchers to go elsewhere. Competition and threat of actually losing money if they don't do the job is the only thing that will put a fire under some of these places.

But why not actually trying to find out the facts before running around saying "How horrible - once again the evil Republican is snatching money from the poor to give to the rich......."

<center><FONT COLOR="#000080">--- Edited 1 times, lastly by Kim on Jan 09, 2002 ---</FONT></center>

I just wanna say a few things on the subject.

1) Public Education in large measure is broken, and that is in large measure to the power and self-serving nature of the teachers unions. Way too much of the tail wagging the dog if you ask me.
Accountablity is important and way overdue.

2)Even though I like some, but not all aspects of this plan, I still think "W" is a complete moron.

3) I love ANY topic that gets Kim involved, because it's really fun to get her pissed off.......unless of course you happen to be Dave. <img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/smile.gif" width=15 height=15>

kim...just read the article on cnn describing the education plan and it read just like you stated.

"yeah, what larry said" on 1 & 2.

don't even get me started on property taxes as a way to fund schools, pat!! <img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/wink.gif" width=15 height=15>

And another one for the Bush-bashers here - I copied this directly from Neal Boortz column. He's an ultra-conservative columnist, but I've found that conservative or not, he's pretty fair. He has no trouble at all blasting conservatives for the same things he blasts liberals for, and I've found when he reports something, his facts are pretty much straight. (edited to correct - calling him ultra-conservative is not really correct. He's actually very much Libertarian...granted, that equates to conservative to a certain extent, but he's definately NOT a Rush Limbaugh, which is what most people mean when they say ultra-conservative. I lean much more to the Libertarian....though I agree with him on some things, Rush gets on my nerves a lot too!!)

.....
For Those Dems Who Claim Bush Is Owned by Big Oil

The Clinton administration (including "Mr. Green Schemes," Al Gore) implemented a plan for high-mileage cars. Their billion-dollar program called for the auto industry to develop cars that would get up to 70 miles a gallon by using lighter alloys and more efficient engines.

Well, the Bush administration has announced plans to scrap the Clinton plan and push to develop new cars that use hydrogen fuel-cell technology instead.

This is the only sane long-term idea, because this takes us completely away from dependence on foreign AND domestic oil. The only byproduct of hydrogen fuel cells is environmentally friendly water. One of the ways to get hydrogen is from natural gas – something we have an abundance of – and it appears that fuel-cell cars could be on the market in as little as 5-10 years.

This is a brilliant political, economic, and even national security move on Bush's part. It trumps the Dems on the issues of Big Oil and ANWR, it completely changes our politics toward the Middle East, it sparks a new technology boom, which could spur the economy, and it even succeeds environmentally where Al Gore failed ... bringing an end to the internal combustion engine.

And that, friends, will have OPEC countries shaking in their boots.

Don't look for Bush to get any credit for this, though. That just wouldn't be politically correct.
......

Now, granted, there's a long way to go between Bush announcing they will be coming out with a plan and something actually happening, but if this is the direction he really plans to push, all I can say is....

It's about damn time someone woke up and did this! The way we've gone about trying to improve fuel-efficiency, clean up emissions, etc. is a losing battle.

<center><FONT COLOR="#000080">--- Edited 1 times, lastly by Kim on Jan 09, 2002 ---</FONT></center>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by deb:

"yeah, what larry said" on 1 & 2.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about 3?!?!?!

larry.. <img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/laugh.gif" width=15 height=15> well, i like to see kim involved...but i don't really want to piss her off. if you said it was good to get kim involved because she's good in a debate, then i'd agree with you...because she is.

All of that is true too deb, but it's still fun to piss her off!

Kim, I heard the report on CBS and it was Geo. W. speaking and he did say

"the schools which teach the children will get funding and those that don't will lose their funding and we will have tests to decide which schools are teaching the children, now that's fair isn't it"

Now I only heard the part of the speach as was presented by CBS News and I only commented on what it was I heard him say, I was not bashing the President, only asking for comments on what others thought.


Now in reply to your post regarding alternate engery for cars,
I think that's great, but if it is true, why destory the Artic?


I am not trying to bash the goverment, but I do question the actions of what ever goverment is in power, and that includes the democrats as well.

Since I consider Democrats conservative, there's really no point in my commenting on the efforts of this administration. So I'll spare y'all.

On the subject of education, I will only say that I believe EVERY child in America deserves the same education. Regardless of wealth, every classroom should offer the same quality, whether its inner city or white suburbia.

I believe in a strong public education. This country has the assets to provide that, it just doesn't have the will to spread those assets out equally. Until we get over the assumption that the rich are entitled to a better education, because they were born with a silver spoon in their yaps, then we will continue down the unjust road we're heading down now.

As with most issues, somebody's profit-making potential will be judged more important than true equality.

ahhhh, kim is back from the holidays!

Vouchers? Against 'em. Public education needs an overhaul, and tossing the money to the private institutions won't help the public schools one bit. Can't make public schools compete in an decidely unequal matchup. Maybe the solution is to require the private schools to kick into the public fund? They operate without the shackles of public scrutiny, with private funds from wealthy alumni and current enrollees, and can say "NO" to a student seeking a seat. Let them pay a tithe to the public schools in their vacinity to be allowed such largesse. Just a thought...
Personally, I think the whole voucher issue on the national level is just a thinly disguised ploy to allow more people to send their kids to parochial/religious schools using public SECULAR funds...
As for the teachers union... tough call. I'm pro-union, but I'm anti-union leadership...

As for bush-league ideas, this new, innovative automotive idea is certainly nothing thought up by the prez hisself, I can assure you. He would have thought of using horseshit first. In any event, it's all smoke and mirrors to a certain degree... get folks off of thinking about oil as a critical commodity, so he and his cronies can go about their business of ripping up artic preserves. You think detroit is going to run and produce new engine cars so fast? Have you seen car prices lately?? Do you think they would give cars away for 0% financing (another myth) if they were doing so well? There was a day when you couldn't buy a Honda without paying a PREMIUM above the sticker price! Seen any of that lately?? Foreign makers might have more incentives (like tariffs, etc.) to retool, but since it's a global market, and we'd have to sell this technology to other countries as well, it doesn't look likely that anyone would be on this bandwagon anytime soon... and besides all that, do you think dependence on oil is strictly an automotive issue? What about heating most of the NorthEast? Generators? Castor Oil??? (sorry, couldn't help myself)
Nope... I'm not buyin' it. It sounds great. So did cold fusion. I'm still waiting...


ooooohhhhh my head is spinning! I think i have a brain-cell ache!

I certainly agree with Arnie about vouchers for all the reasons he's stated. As far as the public school system being broken..it varies and it's complicated. Some schools are doing great. Around here a wealthy district is a good district, as far as test scores and college admissions go anyway. The exception is in a few super wealthy areas where the homeowners' kids tend to go to private schools anyway, or to live in the city during the school year..where they attend private school. But there's also the fact that schools need to do a lot more than they used to and there's huge pressure to do it a lot faster. Kids have so much more work to cover and such a young age, it's not really surprising that a lot of them can't keep up. But that's a rant for another day.

From Neal Boortz, as quoted by Kim:

And where does natural gas come from? The same place oil comes from. Who controls it? The "awl bidness," as we say down here in "awl country." That's not to say it's a bad idea--it's just humorous that of the many possibilities, the man has found one that would put more money in his and his cronies' pockets. The natural gas often is just burned off now, it's too unprofitable to capture and sell. That's insane except from a short-term free-market perspective, so something that would stop it might be a good thing. I'm sorry, Kim, but I saw what he did/tried to do in Texas, and I can't stand to even look at him.

BTW, a law he wasn't able to change here and that is still in effect is popularly called the Robin Hood law. It does actually take money from the richer school districts and distribute it to the poorer ones. And let us not forget his great Charter School idea. Was that a bust or what?