Here is an article summarizing OBama's grant plan for education.
I have a better idea. What if the money was given to the schools that needed it directly? Then they could fix up buildings, hire more staff, buy new books and other aids and possibly catch up with the funding the suburban schools get.
Wait, that wouldn't make sense.
It saddens me that the Democrats are just following along the Republican trail as far as education is concerned. Its not going to help. Not in the long run.
The brilliant thing is this is aimed at "stopping dropping out" but most of the money is headed to high school kids, some to junior high.
That's great, but the seeds of eventual dropping out are usually planted much earlier than even the 6th grade.
Can you tell I've been reading a bit on the issues and inequities of the American Education System lately?
Oh, and notice how I'm not saying "its cause the teachers suck!"
Monday, March 1, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
So It Begins...
Ahh, the lovely fallout of NCLB begins.
So, the theory is, fire all the teachers, hire back no more than 50% of them. Bring in new teachers (at least 50% of your teachers will be new) and watch test scores....improve? Really? Maybe they will, lots can be done if you drill for the tests, but I honestly can't see it helping improve the 50% dropout rate.
Let me see if I understand this. EVERY teacher is bad enough to deserve to be fired, but up to 50% MIGHT be good enough to hire back? Why does this make no logical sense to me?
Another story says the principal wants to lengthen the school day AND thinks the teachers should offer extra tutoring to the students. Note, this is a "tiny impoverished city" so I could bet the school is underfunded already. I'm doubting the teachers were in for much of a raise for all the time invested.
Now, one COULD say "Oh, to save their jobs they should put in the time for free." Well, that is one way of looking at it.
Obviously it is by someone who knows nothing about the average teacher's workday. Teachers at underfunded schools are frequently required to put in MORE hours for less pay, just because they have less to work on.
I'm betting, and I could be wrong, but I'm betting if the school was funded at say, 90% of the richest public school in Rhode Island the results would be different.
Sure, the drop out rate might be higher than more affluent communities, but I bet they could get it up with more manpower.
In the military, they talk about "boots on the ground." How many people are actually there to do the mission.
Well, that needs to start happening in education. We need more boots on the ground. More aides, more librarians, more teachers, to help these kids.
I'm not saying all these teachers were great. There were probably some who were bad, some who were great, many who were in the middle.
Firing them all is not going to solve the schools problems. Nor is more stringent testing requirements.
I won't even start on how the Education Secretary put his two cents of praise in.
These people are clueless. And they are running the show.
Scary.
So, the theory is, fire all the teachers, hire back no more than 50% of them. Bring in new teachers (at least 50% of your teachers will be new) and watch test scores....improve? Really? Maybe they will, lots can be done if you drill for the tests, but I honestly can't see it helping improve the 50% dropout rate.
Let me see if I understand this. EVERY teacher is bad enough to deserve to be fired, but up to 50% MIGHT be good enough to hire back? Why does this make no logical sense to me?
Another story says the principal wants to lengthen the school day AND thinks the teachers should offer extra tutoring to the students. Note, this is a "tiny impoverished city" so I could bet the school is underfunded already. I'm doubting the teachers were in for much of a raise for all the time invested.
Now, one COULD say "Oh, to save their jobs they should put in the time for free." Well, that is one way of looking at it.
Obviously it is by someone who knows nothing about the average teacher's workday. Teachers at underfunded schools are frequently required to put in MORE hours for less pay, just because they have less to work on.
I'm betting, and I could be wrong, but I'm betting if the school was funded at say, 90% of the richest public school in Rhode Island the results would be different.
Sure, the drop out rate might be higher than more affluent communities, but I bet they could get it up with more manpower.
In the military, they talk about "boots on the ground." How many people are actually there to do the mission.
Well, that needs to start happening in education. We need more boots on the ground. More aides, more librarians, more teachers, to help these kids.
I'm not saying all these teachers were great. There were probably some who were bad, some who were great, many who were in the middle.
Firing them all is not going to solve the schools problems. Nor is more stringent testing requirements.
I won't even start on how the Education Secretary put his two cents of praise in.
These people are clueless. And they are running the show.
Scary.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Musings
Wow, I should stop reading the news. I should stop delving into stories. I should stop following links, and should just sit back and let the TV "news" channel of my choice lull me into nothingness.
America is in trouble but nobody in our government seems interested in doing anything about it. What issue in particular am I talking about?
The "economic recovery." Call me a liberal, but I see a problem with the current recovery we are having. Its only helping those who are the same people who caused the bulk of the problems in the first place?
Oh, don't get me wrong, the average American consumer (myself included in the past) is an idiot who spends way more than they can afford to. Credit card debt, along with with bad mortgages, too much on car loans, and nothing in savings helped fuel this disaster.
However, that doesn't absolve Wall Street. And Wall Street, not the average American, is who recieved the most bailout money.
Profits are up, bonuses are rolling, and millions of Americans are out of work with no prospects in the short term. Honestly, how long can a "recovery" go on if 10% (and the numbers are higher when you include people who have given up hope of getting a job) of the work force in out of work?
Without getting too deep into the silliness that is financial world pay plans, how about we put some real incentive back into the jobs?
Those people are highly trained, and frequently, doing high stress jobs. I have no issues with them being well compensated. However, "bonuses" should be based on performance, ie making money in the long term, not just "performance" which is shifting money for short term "gains." (Its not a gain if the money goes away again down the line.)
What if, and this is crazy liberal talk I know, we start breaking up companies that are "too big to fail."
Think about it? Why should any company, especially a bank, be too big to fail? That doesn't lead to healthy competition and smart business practices. It leads to making dumb decisions because you know the government will have your back when you tank.
what if, instead of rewarding US companies for moving jobs overseas (it can help boost the bottom line!) we encourage investment in factories here? Sure, I know that isn't cost effective, the way the system is set up currently.
However, it could be. Give tax credits for companies keeping jobs here or creating new jobs. There are lots of carrots you can dangle before them. Hit them with penalties every time they decide to "outsource" jobs to a foreign country. Create tariffs on goods, without actually taxing the good.
Heck, start a national campaign "Buy American for America." We are never going to be a manufacturing-centric nation again, but we do need a certain percentage of those jobs. Do they need to be as high paying as the car company jobs with their great benefits and pension plans?
No. But they should pay a living wage.
And what if, WHAT IF, some sort of cap was set on exectutive pay? Cap it at total compensation, TOTAL including stock options, deferred payments, assorted perks, and cash, could be no more than 500x the average pay of workers in a company.
So, if the average pay was 50k, an executive could recieve no more than 25mil a year in benefits. Is that unfair? Really?
I don't see how this could possibly be a bad thing.
We need to make it easier to unionize. But unions need to be smarter. There needs to be oversight of unions to insure they are looking out for the best interests of their workers.
I'm going to stop my crazy pinko rantings here. They way we have been doing things is not working. At least not for the bulk of America.
Part of the blame falls on the American people.
Much of the blame falls on the super-rich and politicians who seem to have forgetton that the average American is not a millionare.
America is in trouble but nobody in our government seems interested in doing anything about it. What issue in particular am I talking about?
The "economic recovery." Call me a liberal, but I see a problem with the current recovery we are having. Its only helping those who are the same people who caused the bulk of the problems in the first place?
Oh, don't get me wrong, the average American consumer (myself included in the past) is an idiot who spends way more than they can afford to. Credit card debt, along with with bad mortgages, too much on car loans, and nothing in savings helped fuel this disaster.
However, that doesn't absolve Wall Street. And Wall Street, not the average American, is who recieved the most bailout money.
Profits are up, bonuses are rolling, and millions of Americans are out of work with no prospects in the short term. Honestly, how long can a "recovery" go on if 10% (and the numbers are higher when you include people who have given up hope of getting a job) of the work force in out of work?
Without getting too deep into the silliness that is financial world pay plans, how about we put some real incentive back into the jobs?
Those people are highly trained, and frequently, doing high stress jobs. I have no issues with them being well compensated. However, "bonuses" should be based on performance, ie making money in the long term, not just "performance" which is shifting money for short term "gains." (Its not a gain if the money goes away again down the line.)
What if, and this is crazy liberal talk I know, we start breaking up companies that are "too big to fail."
Think about it? Why should any company, especially a bank, be too big to fail? That doesn't lead to healthy competition and smart business practices. It leads to making dumb decisions because you know the government will have your back when you tank.
what if, instead of rewarding US companies for moving jobs overseas (it can help boost the bottom line!) we encourage investment in factories here? Sure, I know that isn't cost effective, the way the system is set up currently.
However, it could be. Give tax credits for companies keeping jobs here or creating new jobs. There are lots of carrots you can dangle before them. Hit them with penalties every time they decide to "outsource" jobs to a foreign country. Create tariffs on goods, without actually taxing the good.
Heck, start a national campaign "Buy American for America." We are never going to be a manufacturing-centric nation again, but we do need a certain percentage of those jobs. Do they need to be as high paying as the car company jobs with their great benefits and pension plans?
No. But they should pay a living wage.
And what if, WHAT IF, some sort of cap was set on exectutive pay? Cap it at total compensation, TOTAL including stock options, deferred payments, assorted perks, and cash, could be no more than 500x the average pay of workers in a company.
So, if the average pay was 50k, an executive could recieve no more than 25mil a year in benefits. Is that unfair? Really?
I don't see how this could possibly be a bad thing.
We need to make it easier to unionize. But unions need to be smarter. There needs to be oversight of unions to insure they are looking out for the best interests of their workers.
I'm going to stop my crazy pinko rantings here. They way we have been doing things is not working. At least not for the bulk of America.
Part of the blame falls on the American people.
Much of the blame falls on the super-rich and politicians who seem to have forgetton that the average American is not a millionare.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Leadership
Leadership, that's something this country needs and it is not being provided by our President.
I'll put this out there. I voted for Obama for a variety of reasons. One reason was I didn't want Sarah Palin second in line for the presidency.
Before he took office I was disappointed with him. Not, surprised, disappointed, as he surrounded himself with Clinton cronies who had already proved once they had no clue how to lead a country.
Someone needs to tell Obama that he doesn't come across as "bridge-building" or "bipartisan" but merely weak and indecisive.
In a day and age where far too many people only get their "news" from the source they find most appealing (gives it the spin they like) every decision is going to be ripped on by someone anyway. So be a leader. MAKE a decision.
Healthcare: We still don't know if Obama really wants the public option in a bill or not. It looks like the Democrats are going to get it back in there (thankfully, because without it, no bill would be better.) So tell us what YOU support President Obama!
Economy: Yes, the bailout "worked." It saved jobs, created a few new jobs and propped up many plutocrats who elected officials will be needing money from every few years. However, there are still 10% of American's without work. More if you count the people who gave up. The jobs bill that is dying in the Senate is a joke. Be a leader. Make hard decisions. Support unpopular, but necessary ideas. Do SOMETHING, besides try to save Democratic seats in the fall. Do you know why people think you're doing the wrong things? Its because you aren't really doing anything at all!!!
Terrorism: Trumpet the fact we've caught or killed a number of high ranking Taliban and Al Quaeda figures over the past few months. Say, "hey, this wasn't my fight, but we're doing the best we can and look what we've done." Talk about how much information we're getting from the Christmas Day bomber because we didn't torture him, but brought in his family to talk to him.
President Obama, I have cut you slack because you were inheriting a disaster. I didn't think you could do much to turn things around, but I hoped I was wrong. Instead, your lack of will, your lack of LEADERSHIP, has saddened me.
Stop getting into spats with FoxNews, or Sarah Palin, or whoever. Have some guts and say, "You know, you can believe the naysayers if you want, you don't have to agree with me, but I am the President of the USA and I believe this is what we should be doing."
Sure, you'll be skewered for it. But, you're getting skewered anyway.
I know this is a lot to ask, but a 2nd term doesn't matter if you got nothing done in the first one. Don't worry about being unpopular if you're actually doing good things.
I'll put this out there. I voted for Obama for a variety of reasons. One reason was I didn't want Sarah Palin second in line for the presidency.
Before he took office I was disappointed with him. Not, surprised, disappointed, as he surrounded himself with Clinton cronies who had already proved once they had no clue how to lead a country.
Someone needs to tell Obama that he doesn't come across as "bridge-building" or "bipartisan" but merely weak and indecisive.
In a day and age where far too many people only get their "news" from the source they find most appealing (gives it the spin they like) every decision is going to be ripped on by someone anyway. So be a leader. MAKE a decision.
Healthcare: We still don't know if Obama really wants the public option in a bill or not. It looks like the Democrats are going to get it back in there (thankfully, because without it, no bill would be better.) So tell us what YOU support President Obama!
Economy: Yes, the bailout "worked." It saved jobs, created a few new jobs and propped up many plutocrats who elected officials will be needing money from every few years. However, there are still 10% of American's without work. More if you count the people who gave up. The jobs bill that is dying in the Senate is a joke. Be a leader. Make hard decisions. Support unpopular, but necessary ideas. Do SOMETHING, besides try to save Democratic seats in the fall. Do you know why people think you're doing the wrong things? Its because you aren't really doing anything at all!!!
Terrorism: Trumpet the fact we've caught or killed a number of high ranking Taliban and Al Quaeda figures over the past few months. Say, "hey, this wasn't my fight, but we're doing the best we can and look what we've done." Talk about how much information we're getting from the Christmas Day bomber because we didn't torture him, but brought in his family to talk to him.
President Obama, I have cut you slack because you were inheriting a disaster. I didn't think you could do much to turn things around, but I hoped I was wrong. Instead, your lack of will, your lack of LEADERSHIP, has saddened me.
Stop getting into spats with FoxNews, or Sarah Palin, or whoever. Have some guts and say, "You know, you can believe the naysayers if you want, you don't have to agree with me, but I am the President of the USA and I believe this is what we should be doing."
Sure, you'll be skewered for it. But, you're getting skewered anyway.
I know this is a lot to ask, but a 2nd term doesn't matter if you got nothing done in the first one. Don't worry about being unpopular if you're actually doing good things.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Something to Ponder
I learned today that the Supreme Court ruled that a quality education was not something gaurenteed by the Constitution.
Merely adequate education.
Just consider that.
Its not a right, but the government has mandated higher standards year after year and punish teachers and schools who do not reach artificial benchmarks.
Brilliant. Just brilliant.
Merely adequate education.
Just consider that.
Its not a right, but the government has mandated higher standards year after year and punish teachers and schools who do not reach artificial benchmarks.
Brilliant. Just brilliant.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Peaceful Revolution
After reading a Huffington Post blog I got to thinking: How does a wealthy country have a revolution?
No, I'm not talking crazy here. We don't need violence, or guns, or a forcible overthrow of the government. Overall, things aren't bad. However, the overall system is broken and if the American people want the best for their country they need to understand this.
I feel most of the Tea Party people are idiots (sorry, but while some of the ideas they espouse seem nice, think critically on them.... i'll take socialism over a plutocracy if it comes to it) but they at least have the guts to admit that the Republican party isn't going to do anything to help move their ideas forward.
The progressives haven't realized this yet. They seem to think that the Democratic party is going to pull itself away from the corporate trough and actually be, well progressive. It isn't going to happen.
The reason is this. Politicians are in politics to be in politics. Oh sure, they believe they know best and can help, but right now the argument shouldn't be over "big" government or "small" government. It needs to be over SMART government.
Efficiency is not the goal, but it IS part of the overall solution. We need to merge many of the various governmental agencies into powerful watchdogs over whatever sector they watch. This includes the government itself in my mind.
NPR had a story a month or so back about how part of the problem with the derivatives is that 2 different agencies thought the other agency was watching the banks. It "slipped" through the cracks.
One congressman attempted to merge the two agencies, but it failed because that meant one of the committee chairmen would lose an agency to oversee.
Political power once again trumps the greater good.
This sort of thing is RAMPANT in all levels of government, but most noticeable, and concerning at the national level.
Merging agencies, giving them real power and authority, and, good lord, possibly voluntarily limiting certain rights, would be steps in the correct direction.
It will not happen until we change the overall political system, and I'm sorry, that is going to take a peaceful revolution which I think we as a nation are too rich and lazy to partake in.
No, I'm not talking crazy here. We don't need violence, or guns, or a forcible overthrow of the government. Overall, things aren't bad. However, the overall system is broken and if the American people want the best for their country they need to understand this.
I feel most of the Tea Party people are idiots (sorry, but while some of the ideas they espouse seem nice, think critically on them.... i'll take socialism over a plutocracy if it comes to it) but they at least have the guts to admit that the Republican party isn't going to do anything to help move their ideas forward.
The progressives haven't realized this yet. They seem to think that the Democratic party is going to pull itself away from the corporate trough and actually be, well progressive. It isn't going to happen.
The reason is this. Politicians are in politics to be in politics. Oh sure, they believe they know best and can help, but right now the argument shouldn't be over "big" government or "small" government. It needs to be over SMART government.
Efficiency is not the goal, but it IS part of the overall solution. We need to merge many of the various governmental agencies into powerful watchdogs over whatever sector they watch. This includes the government itself in my mind.
NPR had a story a month or so back about how part of the problem with the derivatives is that 2 different agencies thought the other agency was watching the banks. It "slipped" through the cracks.
One congressman attempted to merge the two agencies, but it failed because that meant one of the committee chairmen would lose an agency to oversee.
Political power once again trumps the greater good.
This sort of thing is RAMPANT in all levels of government, but most noticeable, and concerning at the national level.
Merging agencies, giving them real power and authority, and, good lord, possibly voluntarily limiting certain rights, would be steps in the correct direction.
It will not happen until we change the overall political system, and I'm sorry, that is going to take a peaceful revolution which I think we as a nation are too rich and lazy to partake in.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Accountability
Reading this, you'll probably think I read all the gossip columns and watch TMZ all the time. I don't. But, if you follow almost ANY news source, you'll see things like young celebrities dying with no evidence of "foul play."
I believe drug overdose is going to become a "natural cause" in California. Michael Jackson, Brittney Murphy, The Rev (drummer for Avenged Sevenfold), and now Johnson & Johnson heiress Casey Johnson is dead too. I'm suspecting a pile of prescription drugs is going to be found at her house, just like at Jackson's and Murphy's. The Rev liked his booze and coke, so, who knows if anything else was involved.
I guess the point I'm making is this: If you want to do drugs, you can always get drugs. However, far too many doctors have merely become drug dispensers for the rich & famous. The pile of legal (prescription) drugs that Murphy had at her house would have done most people in.
Why has it become ok to pop pills just because a doctor gives them to you? These drugs aren't tested against possible interactions with EVERYTHING possible you could take.
YOU are responsible for what you put into your body. BUT, if we're going to hold drug dealers accountable for a product that kills, are we going to hold some of these joke doctors responsible too?
I believe drug overdose is going to become a "natural cause" in California. Michael Jackson, Brittney Murphy, The Rev (drummer for Avenged Sevenfold), and now Johnson & Johnson heiress Casey Johnson is dead too. I'm suspecting a pile of prescription drugs is going to be found at her house, just like at Jackson's and Murphy's. The Rev liked his booze and coke, so, who knows if anything else was involved.
I guess the point I'm making is this: If you want to do drugs, you can always get drugs. However, far too many doctors have merely become drug dispensers for the rich & famous. The pile of legal (prescription) drugs that Murphy had at her house would have done most people in.
Why has it become ok to pop pills just because a doctor gives them to you? These drugs aren't tested against possible interactions with EVERYTHING possible you could take.
YOU are responsible for what you put into your body. BUT, if we're going to hold drug dealers accountable for a product that kills, are we going to hold some of these joke doctors responsible too?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)