http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/10197678.htm?1c



http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/10205054.htm



http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/10203451.htm



Despite Kennedy’s support, there is some conservative opposition.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Nov17.html

Spelling's biography on the White House webpage is a bit sketchy.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/spellings-bio.html

Here’s a little more from American President.org



http://www.americanpresident.org/action/or...s/a_index.shtml

Margaret Spellings, George W. Bush’s nominee for Secretary of Education raises some questions in my mind. As I read various accounts, I find that she has an interest in education, is a "product" of the public schools, has worked on some citizen committees, has worked as a lobbyist, has worked with Bush since his earliest days in politics, has bipartisan support in Congress and was the chief architect of and may become the chief expander of “No Child Left Behind.”

What I don’t find are any specific qualifications for the post. She has never had any practical experience as a teacher, mid-level administrator or school superintendent. In fact, attainment of a bachelor’s certificate is not even enough to earn an administrator’s certificate in Texas.

Note: Links provided may require registration.

I have tried to present information on both sides of the question. My questions for debate are:

1. Is Margaret Spellings a good nominee for Secretary of Education?

2. Is her selection part of Bush's "mandate" or "political capital" expendiature?

3. Will she be confirmed by the Senate?

4. Will her lack of experience as a professional educator hinder her job performance?

Edited for visuals and typos.

Well, I have done some searching, basically regarding the well known "Texas Miracle" lies on education- and I haven't been able to find her name. If she had nothing to do with the typical Texas corruption that followed her boss regarding education in his state (or, as it turns out, lack of it) - well, if she is as pragmatic as she seems to be, I welcome her as a breath of fresh air in this regime.

http://home.earthlink.net/~acisney2/id13.html

Admittedly, a biased source, but it does do a good job of laying out the corruption of GWs education issues.

Anyone know if she was part of that fiasco?

Until her recent marriage she was known as Margaret La Montagne.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/conte...12/b3724099.htm

She has pretty much flown under the radar.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...v17.html?sub=AR

1. Is Margaret Spellings a good nominee for Secretary of Education?

Like Bush’s appointments of Condoleezza Rice; Secretary of state and Alberto Gonzales; Attorney General, Margaret Spellings (La Montagne) has been with Bush since his early political days in Texas

I find this trend disturbing. In my opinion, Spellings’ main task will be to expand the more odious elements of No Child Left Behind, particularly the testing of students in all high school grades.

Currently, Texas, the model for NCLC tests high school students in grade 11. There is already too much emphasis on testing and not enough on learning. Expanding testing in all grades will only create more anxiety in students, parents, teachers and administrators of all levels.

In Texas, one must complete three years of satisfactory teaching experience to obtain an administrator’s certificate. Despite her ability on the hill, Spellings has no professional experience as an educator. I Would suggest that this makes her a less than desirable candidate for Secretary of Education.

BTW: I’m a bit perplexed by the appointment of Carlos Gutierrez as Commerce Secretary. Could it be that Bush thought he was CEO of Kellogg, Brown and Root (the Halliburton subsidiary) rather than the Kellogg Co. that makes Rice Crispies? I hope Uncle Dick doesn’t, as the British would say, “get his knickers in a twist.”

Several questions in response to your call for debate.

1. Without testing, how can one determine if the children are "learning"?? Do we just "ask" them? Or, do we insist on some definable metrics?

2. Why is experience as an "educator" a requirement for the essentially management position of SOE? Who would Spellings be teaching in her position?

3. Why the cheap shot at Gutierrez? Frankly, I'd take a successful CEO of a public company in that sort of position rather than a theorist from academia who never had to meet a payroll, succeed in a competitive market, answer to shareholders, and keep a workforce motivated.

The problem is that school systems have become so geared to testing that it takes up too much time. I was a special educator for 25 years, and although my kids were exempt from state testing, I saw what it did. When teachers spend a large amount of time "teaching to the test" other priorities suffer. I'm not entirely against testing, but it should be deemphasized.



Margaret Spellings was a lobbyist for education when she went to work for Bush in Texas. Lobbyists generally have an agenda. Part of Magaret Spelling's agenda is to expand testing to all high school grades. In Texas we test in the 11th grade, and that gives seniors another year to pass. One year in high school is sufficient. I think at least some experience as a professional educator would the secretayr knowledge of what the bureaucracy mission is all about provide some knowledge of how the policies made by the department impact those in the trenches--that is professional educators.



It was meant as a joke and a play on the word Kellogg. If it were a "cheap shot" it was directed at Cheney, but how can anyone take a cheap shot at the current VP?

I think the issue has been that testing has been deemphasized in the past.... to the point of not being done.

Our public schools have routinely passed children through the system who cannot read and write. Is that because standards were emphasized? Because testing was a priority?

I think not.

What Bush has advocated makes perfect sense. The public school system in this country has been behaving exactly like any union dominated bureaucratic monopoly behaves; poor quality at high price. It's time that our educators be held responsible for the result of their educating. All successful business measures their processes in order to determine quality. What the opponents of testing would have us believe is that GM could put a car together without processes designed to measure the components to make it. Close enough for government work isn't good enough for our kid's education.

Testing for kids, and more importantly testing for educators is a prerequisite, not an end all. It's a modest first step and I find the opposition to it within the educational union establishment irrational.

Actually, Bush's original Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, favored a program called "One Child at a Time." The emphasis here was to write strategic plans for each student, rather than treat them as a group to be tested, and tested and tested some more as with "No Child Left Behind." Regardless of what we do, education will always be a human endevour, a reaction between student and teacher. Socrates would be appalled at attempts to confine education to testing. It is just as important to teach students how to think and express those thoughts, as to do math problems or locate some point on a map.

Special education teachers have written individualized education Plans (commonly called IEPs) since the initiation of PL94-12 in 1975. A plan treating students as individuals would, in my opinion, of course, be better than what Bush and Spellings want.

Paul O'Neill, LOL. I wonder if he could produce aluminum tubing at ALCOA "one rod at a time". That guy needed his head examined in my opinion. Worst hire that Bush ever made. I'm glad he had the sense to can that crackpot.

Education isn't all that complicated. It's taken years of liberal propaganda and the misguided control of our educational system by a self-serving union to con people into thinking it is so.

We once taught our kids in one room school houses in a SUPERIOR fashion to what's done today. Why? We expected high results and made sure the kids achieved them.

Now, kids just get shuffled through the system because we don't want to bruise their precious self esteem.

Testing isn't a big deal. Like I said, it's just a basic prerequisite. The REAL reforms need to come later.

That's interesting. So, I guess, your words

do no apply to Paul O'Neill, who, according to Online News Hour,

That what happens to successful CEOs when they dare to criticize the Prez.

Well, you're partially right. I'd prefer a CEO like O'Neill over a crackpot from academia like say... well, most of Clinton's cabinet. Sha-lay-la.... got me on my knees.... or the worst SS in our history, Albright. Gag!

As a CEO, O'Neill should have known that you don't go to the press to criticize the boss if you don't agree with his position. That's called insubordination.

O'Neill was Bush's worst choice. He looked good on paper and Bush can't be faulted for believing in his resume, but the guy was a disaster. Sometimes, ego cases like O'Neill can't handle the fact that they're not running the entire show like they did at their company.

So, are you saying that people who spend eight years or so getting a Ph.D. are crackpots?

I think successful CEOs have a place in public service, but so do academicians. You are spending too much time calling names and labeling and too little presenting anything other than your opinions, dwelling on stereotypes rather than depth and the complicated nature of most things.

It seems to me that if one wishes to "teach students to think and express themselves" it might be helpful to at least teach them how to read and write. It is pretty difficult to express oneself without knowing the language. As far as doing math problems and being able to locate a point on a map is concerned, that kind of seems pretty important to me as well. Perhaps I am wrong and it is only important to teach a kid to think they know something and then not destroy that thought by asking them to prove it by taking a pretty basic test. That makes the answer to the question of why Tommy can't read pretty easy.....

"Because he doesn't think he needs to....."

Aquilla,

Reading, writing, geography, math and thinking are all important. You are taking this as an all or nothing approach.

What puzzles me are people who think that endless testing and "teaching to the test" is the way to get there.

Again, I think Paul O'Neill was right in favoring "One Child at a Time." It would cost more money and take more time, but creating "strategic plans" for each student, seems to me the way to go. It's very easy for someone (not you) to come on here and blast Paul O'Neill as Bush's "worst" appointment. It does nothing to refute the notion that "One Child at a Time" is a superior approach compared to "No Child Left Behind."

I'm not taking an all or nothing approach at all. I just think that basic education in the subjects listed is important. I don't know where you get the this idea of "endless testing" either. It's not. It's a single test that I think lasts 2 days and I don't think it's even every year. To hear the howls about it one would think we are making the kids take the SAT every day. As far as "teaching to the test" is concerned, I'm not sure quite what that means. If it means giving the child the basic knowledge necessary to pass the test, then where's the problem? If you think the basic knowledge necessary is frivilous, then your problem is with the test itself. I haven't heard that objection raised anywhere quite frankly.

As far as Paul O'Neill's idea of an IEP for every child is concerned...... whoa, break the bank on that one!

I'm the father of a special education child and I know what an IEP entails. I've been through a number of them. They normally involve 2-4 teachers, a counselor, an administrator and at least one therapist. Most of the ones I've attended lasted at least 2 hours and they are held at least once a year, sometimes twice. That's just the meeting itself. My child's middle school has 2 grades (7&8) and 1250+ students. How much would it cost to do an IEP even once a year for every student in that school? How many teachers, counselors and administrators would have to be hired just to attend the meetings instead of educating the kids?

Maybe that's what it is in California, but Texas has been doing this for some time as part of an education initative formulated in 1984 by a commission headed by H. Ross Perot. The idea was carried to full fruition under Bush as Governor of Texas.

It's not just the "the 2 or 3 days" that are spent testing. It's endless rote, scripted teaching of what's on the test, the total aura of a dark cloud that hangs over schools for almost an entire year, a menace that occupies the minds of students, parents, teachers and administrators from the day school opens unil the test is administered, the state scores them and the results are in. This reduces education to the lowest common denominator, and the superior students get short changed in the process.

Sure, "One Child at a Time" might "break the bank" but Republicans don't seem to mind doing that for a worthless, destructive and ill advised war in Iraq. I guess it all comes down to priorities.

To get back to the original question, I oppose Margaret Spellings because of her unqualified support for "No Child Left Behind" and lack of experience as anything other than an education lobbyist.

"One Child At A Time" makes no sense from a practical perspective. One doesn't approach the problem of educating large number of children that way anymore than one does not build cars by hand, one at a time.

http://4brevard.com/choice/international-test-scores.htm

The link are where US kids rank next to kids from other countries in standardized math testing.

Are these other countries teaching kids "one kid at a time"? Of course not.

What I don't understand is the pathological fear of "testing" of kids and teachers and the opposition to the modest "No Child Left Behind Act" which was a basic first step in the right direction, not an end all.

Furthermore, the experience of Ms. Spellings is not what should concern you. The experience of "teachers" From the link listed above:

"Among teachers of high school biology and life sciences classes, approximately 31 percent of them do not have at least a minor in biology. Among high school physical science teachers, over half, 55 percent, do not have at least a minor in any of the physical sciences. Again we might question the focus of the teachers on social re-engineering instead of subject areas."

Any form of quality control depends on testing. That is true in manufacturing and it's true in education.

http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/stquacon.html

What Bush and Spellings are trying to do is take the "art" out of education and replace it with "science". The current system that contains too many unqualified teachers, low expectations of the students, little to no standard methods for gaging performance, and a misguided emphasis on "social" topics at the expense of science and technology. The current system clearly doesn't work. Taking pot shots at the decision to go to war in Iraq won't change that basic fact.

Now this has to be the most “profound” statement I have ever read on this board. I take it you have never worked in any capacity in public education, that you have never had to hold the interest of or control a room of thirty or so students, that you have never had to write a lesson plan, have never sponsored a field tripo, never had to attend interminable faculty meetings, never spent your weekend figuring grades, never administered a program in a public school and never taken a college course in education. Had you done any of these things I doubt you would have made this statement.



It seems you have about the same respect for teachers you do the NAACP.



It would be interesting to know what tests you propose for teachers—subject matter, basic literacy? What?

What other reforms do you envision. Are you in favor of total privatization? We had a thread back in the fall that debated the issue of Charter schools. Texas has had a nine year history with them and they haven’t fared well compared to public schools. Please look at the Tables provided by the Texas Education Agency in the last post on the following link.

Public vs. Charter School Performance



Yet, another profound statement. Instead of individualizing education to the student’s need, we run them through an assembly line like autos. We might as well stamp VINs on their behinds while we’re at it.



That’s precisely the problem. Education is a human enterprise where groups of students interact in a rather close environment with teachers and other students. I don’t think anyone opposes all testing, but you are completely missing the point. It may not have reached this point in Michigan, but in Texas, where we had Bush for Governor for six years it drives education. Testing should be a diagnostic tool. One used to find out what students don’t know that they need to know.

“One Child at a Time” only reinforces an idea that has been around for a long time but never fully implemented—individualized education. In special education we give pretests before any teaching place. The “individualized” plan fills in the holes in the students knowledge or better in the case of special education students—skills. Posttests are given and the plan is revised.

Your suggestions lordhelmet would completely depersonalize public education.

BTW: Not only do I not like the Bush/Spellings approach, but moving forward with federal reform in education will be difficult as long as Iraq siphons off time, money and energy.

Well, let me try to take the emotion back out of this debate.

As I posted in my previous entry, the test scores of American students speak for themselves.

Here they are again.

http://4brevard.com/choice/international-test-scores.htm

Yet, our country spends more per student to "educate" those kids than the other countries do. How can that be? The data:

http://www.justfacts.com/education_2.html

Spellings and Bush have (correctly) determined that the current system is broken and must be reformed. The status quo, as advocated by the NEA, is just not acceptable. Nor is the opposition to modest reforms like the bi-partisan "No Child Left Behind Act".

I have a lot of respect for teachers. I know several personally at various levels of teaching from elementary, middle school, high school, and graduate school. I think that the ones I know are wonderful people.

The issue that I have (and Bush and Spellings have) is with the system and the process. The fact of the matter is that union controlled monopolies have a terrible record independent of the endeavor.

An example would be the automobile industry of the 1970's. Until serious competition by the Japanese took place, the quality would have continued to slide while costs grew out of control.

That's where we are in today's public education system. It's not an issue of whether I personally "graded papers". The facts speak for themselves. Some more for you:

http://www.arthurhu.com/index/literacy.htm

Literacy rates. We finish 12th, behind Italy and tied with Mongolia.

I'm an outsider from the educational "establishment". Frankly, that may be an advantage that lets me see the problem for what it is instead of having my vision clouded by a lot of personal emotional investment in a failed "system".

I have seen the educational systems of Japan and Germany first hand. I'm sure you'd be repelled because there is heavy emphasis on rote and levels of testing that would make your head spin. Yet, those children blow ours out of the water in the technical areas.

I think they are on to something. As I said before, education isn't all that hard when you get right down to it. It involves repetition until there is comprehension, and testing to ensure that level of comprehension. When there is focus on the subjects that our kids need to succeed, a commitment to stay the course until the kids "get it" and not just pass them through the system, and a rational process for measuring and ensuring their progress, we'll be as good as any in the world.

The solution is competition, testing, and a focus on the skill sets that our kids need to compete.

As an American critical of public education, I have long been aware of the poor showing of American students in international examinations in, for example, mathematics. However, as a teacher in Korea's most famous prep school, I cannot agree with the educational outsider who says "The facts speak for themselves."

Instead, let me answer what I think was a rhetorical question: "Yet, our country spends more per student to 'educate' those kids than the other countries do. How can that be?"

Here in Korea, there is a history of national testing that goes back several centuries. Every Korean faces a single examination at the end of high school, and that examination largely determines a student's place in society from that date forward. If the test is failed, the student is permanently denied admission to the best university, and, as a consequence, to the best jobs. There is no second chance.

As a result, Korean parents spend as much money on private education as the Korean government does on public education. These cram schools do nothing but prepare students for tests in mathematics and other critical subjects.

The result is that Koreans regularly and predictably do very, very well (second only to Singapore) in international tests. They learn everything by rote, including problem-solving. Creativity, independent thinking, logic -- not required by testing -- are of little interest.

Asian students, of course, are very bright and very hard-working, but here in Korea, parents condemn the poor nationally managed public education system and a testing regime which leads regularly to high school students committing suicide because their test scores were not high enough.

This is more than a side issue to the central question. Margaret Spellings is in no way qualified to be Secretary of Education. She has no experience in education (she has experience in politics, lobbying, advising) and no experience in management. Worse, her lack of depth of knowledge in education has led her to champion a program of national testing which will achieve, as it inevitably grows, expands, and deepens, only further stagnation and conformity.

Many years ago, someone did a study of America's leading scientists -- and found that they had a C+ average in college. America, not Korea, wins countless Nobel Prizes (South Korea has won just one -- a Nobel Peace Prize for its president, obtained by having a summit meeting with North Korea).

Rote learning makes good slaves, but poor citizens.

I suppose that when one useless analogy comparing the education of children to production in the auto industry doesn’t work, try another. The next time I want information on education, I might as well contact the little man with the box around his belly from vehix.com.



Texas is a “right to work state.” That reduces teachers to collective begging rather than collective bargaining.

When I first started teaching in the late 1960s, Texas Teachers had no duty free lunch period, no planning, and few due process rights in termination hearings. Etc. Through the work of Teachers’ “unions” like Texas State Teachers Association (TSTA) we gradually obtained these things. In a right to work state, those rugged individuals who don’t believe in unions don’t have to join, but they still get the benefits like the duty free lunch period. During my years working with the union, I saw many non-members get crossways with an administrator. Faced with possible termination, it’s amazing how quickly these scabs coughed up dues for union representation.

Your anti-union bias is showing lordhelmet



I’m retired, so my emotional investment is much less than before retirement. Still education, despite your auto analogies, is a rather human enterprise. Have you ever, lordhelmet, seen a kid come to school without shoes, without a coat in freezing weather, emotionally upset because Daddy beat the crap out of Mommy the night before? Have you ever arrived at school in the morning and learned that one of your students had died the night before from complications of an epileptic seizure? (I experienced this five times in my career) Except for the federal lunch program, can you imagine a kid trying to learn on an empty stomach? Yeah, I know, conservatives like to parrot the saying “there’s no free lunch” and the recently deified Ronald Reagan once tried to have tomato ketchup counted as a “vegetable” for school lunch purposes. It might have been a cheap “fix” but it wasn’t good nutrition. There may be “no free lunch” but in the context of schools, it is better than no lunch at all. These are the real emotional issues in education.



I don’t think anyone would argue that public education is perfect or that it isn’t expensive. Yet in my career I can’t begin to tell you how many times I have seen problems fixed on the cheap. I can’t begin to tell you how many times I and other teachers dipped into their own pockets to by copy paper and other items that were not in the district’s budget.



There you go again with this anti-union bias. You know, I was a member of NEA for thirty something years and never realized it was such a demonic organization.

Reforming the system (actually there is no system but a lot of small systems called independent school districts. Texas alone has more than 1100 of them. Some work better than others, usually those with greater tax bases and higher funding. That some systems are broken doesn’t mean that the Bush/Spellings approach is the only or best way to go.

No Child Left Behind was based on the Texas model Bush presided over as Governor of Texas.

Here’s an article by factcheck.org disputing the effectiveness of NCLB’s roots in Texas:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=181

This prompted Molly Ivins to write:



http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/columnists...ns/10634761.htm

Then when schools or districts do well, or better than expected, there are people and organizations, like the conservative Dallas Morning News that assume progress has to be based on cheating.

Here’s part of an editorial Bob Ray Sanders wrote for the Fort Worth Star Telegrem on the subject:



http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/columnists...rs/10644565.htm

Here’s another link to a debate we had on NCLB here on AD before you arrived.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...?showtopic=7830



Part of the Texas experiment in bad government has been charter schools that started with Bush’s first term as Governor of Texas. A charter school is sort of a public school that is privately owned. I guess you could say that this is an experiment in privatization.

It seems that the competition from charter schools that you desire is a dismal failure. In fact, according to Texas Education Agency figures, charter schools are 10 times more likely to fail than public schools.

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/acco...atesummary.html

Still the legislature and apparently the Bush administration don't seem to get it.



http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/10644543.htm

Here’s a link to a debate we had on charter schools before you arrived.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...wtopic=7105&hl=

Finally your ideas about curriculum changes and rote learning would not be challenging to most students.

Note: Some links may require registration.

I hear people put down "Teaching the test" all the time. It always brings up the same question in me.

If we have standards of what children need to learn in school and those standards are tested by a test, and the teachers "teach the test", then are not the teachers then teaching the standards we want our kids to reach?

To put it another way, The questions on these tests seek to verify that the children know certain things. These things the test checks are the standards we expect the children to be at. So if the teachers teach the test, then they are teaching those same standards, and the kids learn what we want/need them to learn.

This is what is needed in the "Slow" classes in our schools. As for the more advanced and even honor roll classes, I highly doubt that the teachers focus much time on teaching the basic skills tests.

We had basic skills testing required by the state when I was in school. I was in the "Slow" classes in math and science. In those classes we spent alot of time covering the concepts needed for the test (if I remember correctly we did reviews for about a month before the test). I was in the "advanced" classes in most other subjects. In those classes we spent one day, the day before the test, going over test taking skills, like carefully reading the questions, avoiding tricks and "almost correct" answers, etc.

"teaching the test", based on my experience is a problem that is blown out of proportion. However, even if the test did cause teachers to focus nearly completely on what is covered on the test, what is covered on the test is what we want to be sure children have learned so what is the problem?

The funny thing to me is that we did the same thing when it came to the PSATs and the SATs and no one ever complained about "teaching the test" then.

As for the NEA, like all unions it can be good or bad depending on the local leadership. When it comes to the school district I grew up in (Middletown, New Jersey), it was just plain bad. The teachers, would threaten to strike nearly every contract negotiation year, as they fought for still higher wages. They did strike several times, HURTING THE KIDS by taking days and weeks away from their education, even though in my district the teachers where the highest paid in the state and in the top 15% or better of teacher pay nationwide.

As for the question of the latest cabinet choice:

Why does being a public policy administrator for education require that one be an educator? It seems to me, the job requires that you listen to the various parties, have you staff do some research and determine the best approach to the various problems and implement them. The job requires someone who can be a good administrator, listen to all sides and act. based on what the various outlets have had to say about her she seems to fit those requirements.

We have had educators as Secretaries of Education most of the time. And the success rate of federal programs regarding education are abysmal. Perhaps it's time we try a different approach.

I am no fan of President George W. Bush, but I refuse to see the boogyman in everything that comes from the current administration. Each issue needs to be evaluated on it's merit, without partisan-colored glasses.

Sometimes it takes a while before something accepted for a long time is found to have little value for its intended purpose. Now, at least in my state, the universities are asking that students focus on the ACT rather than SAT or PSAT.

When I was in technical college and later community college, we nursing students were told routinely by our instructors what could be expected on the NCLEX state board examination. Then, we were urged to shell out the money and pay for a six-hour review course where we were also told what was on the test. It was a cram session.

While Bachelor's degree nurses are now prized above community college and trade school nurses (2 year degree) like me, it was the students like me who consistently scored higher than the bachelor's degree graduates on the state board examinations. Did that make us better nurses, or just more test-savvy? If the scores we got made us better nurses than the B.S.N. graduates, then what was the point of two more years of college? Could it be there is more to nursing than getting good scores on the exam?

Not everything can be determined by the ability of a student to pass a test such as the ones used in this No Child Left Behind program. That is my point. We have a country full of test-savvy Americans who know enough to get a job, but don't necessarily know enough to keep that job. That is why fixing the education system is so much more than administering universal tests; the physical facilities, the teacher to student ratio, the budgets, and the classroom materials are also vital to giving our children every opportunity to learn and progress.

I am withholding my judgment on Margaret Spellings for now. If, as Secretary of Education, she puts as little into the program as her boss does, I will say that she is a poor choice for that position. I would like to see how she would hold up trying to teach 35 students in one class to see if she can empathize with that level of difficulty, but it's obviously not mandatory.

That is true. There is more to education then testing. However, what is the alternative? How do we determine if new teaching methods are working other then comparing grade point averages for that subject? What are those grades based on? Tests, Reports (a different kind of test), Quizzes, Homework (another variation on the test), etc.

We need testing. It is the only way I know of to determine if what we are doing now in education is working. Look at it another way. If a child fails a test in school, do we first blame the test, or do we look at other factors, like the child's effort, IQ, parental Involvement, Teacher's ability, etc before we start to look into the test itself?

Life is a test. To get into the better schools requires passing a test (be they colleges or trade schools), to get into the military requires passing a test, to get the better jobs requires passing a test, to get a drivers license requires passing a test. In other words, to get the OPPORTUNITY to succeed at most things in life you need to pass a test. Once in, it is your ability, your knowledge, and your drive, and your character (not to mention luck) that leads to success. But without that basic understanding of the subject, you would have no hope of passing the test, and thus, due to lack of opportunity, no hope of success.

Why do so many places use tests? Because frankly, they work better then anything else. If tests are not the answer, what is? If tests are not used, how would you know if you were successfully teaching the subject?

OLS,

I don't think we're saying not to test. The question seems to me to be if it's appropriate to spend a whole academic year geared to taking a normed reference test and then waiting on pins and needles for another month or two awaiting the results.

The problem isn't that we test, but are consumed by the testing process throughout the school year. I wish I had copied them, but there were several parent letters to the editor of the Fort Worth Star Telegram making this very point. The test as currently administered in Texas becomes both means and ends.

Teachers have taditionally given weekly, six-weeks and final exams covering course content. Teacher made tests are useful for both grading and diagnosing strengths and weaknesses of students. Review for six weeks or final exams, however, usually only takes a day or two--not an entire year.

Results from the Texas experiment with testing does not bode well for the nation.

1. Is Margaret Spellings a good nominee for Secretary of Education?

2. Is her selection part of Bush's "mandate" or "political capital" expendiature?

3. Will she be confirmed by the Senate?

4. Will her lack of experience as a professional educator hinder her job performance?


1.) I, like many. am very worried about the "stacked deck" that the Bush admin has created by importing loyalists in every position. I'm afraid that things aren't looking good for the voices of reason. No, IMHO, she is not a good appointment for the Nations children. She is probably a great choice for Bush because he won't ever have to hear anything he doesn't like.

2.) Sure, isn't everything he does?

3.) Of course...

4.) She will meet fierce opposition from the proffessionals in her field. Will that be because of her "lack of experience" or just because people don't like the program and the way it's run? Who knows...




The problem here is that there is much to consider in teaching that cannot be addressed by quantifiable standards and tests. Can creativity, compassion, perserverance, dedication, reliability, honesty, or any number of the myriad of things that may be taught be tested? Do we simply put them on the backburner to cater to a test that is arguably culturally biased towards white, affluent children?


Anyhow, this debate is about the nomination, and I will save the rest of my comments for a more appropriate topic.

Margaret Spellings has been confirmed and sworn into office So, I guess this post will served as a sort of benediction to the thread. Ms. Spellings’ nomination caused me concern from the beginning, mainly because of her lack of professional experience. Senator Ted Kennedy spoke highly of her, so I was hopeful, but now all hopes have been dashed.

On the heels of the Sponge Bob episode, we now have Margaret Spellings spinning faster than a top over Buster Baxter. What does it say when our “leaders” both religious and political seem obsessed with cartoon characters. One source reported that there was so much gloom and apprehension in the cartoon community that Muckey, Minnie, Goofy, Pluto and the gang had been seen applying for crash-test dummy jobs in an auto factory.



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1331500/posts

Just when those guys with the nets thought they might get some well deserved rest, they now are faced with the daunting task of chasing down not only the still at large James Dobson, but Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings.

My forecast is that Spellings will not only be a political hack, but a right-wing zealously religious political hack.

It's also interesting to note that PBS knuckled under from pressure from Spellings. Ah, censorship--ugly, right-wing religious censorship.

I have a hunch it’s gonna be a long four years.

Perhaps if our "professional" educators were more concerned with teaching reading, writing and arithmetic than they are in exposing our young children to the wonders of having two moms and no dad or vice-versa, these "professional" educators wouldn't be scared to death of their students taking a test. "Johnny can't spell lesbian, but he sure as hell knows what one is....." That's just great. There's a real life skill that Johnny needs to know at age 4 like by the time he's 10 he won't have figured it out from the stuff he sees on television that public tax dollars don't fund. Meanwhile, Johnny doesn't know his alphabet, he can't add 2+2 and he doesn't realize that Kermit can't really jump Miss Piggy's bones....

"Professional educators".... There's an oxymoron for you.......

It's interesting Aquilla, that you didn't reads the information on Margaret Spellings' folly with Buster Bexter thoroughly enough to realize that her remarks were about a PBS program, not the public schools. After reading your post, I'll have to agree that public schools really aren't doing their job.

Edited to add

Interestingly, it was the non-oxy moron Margaret Spellings, not "professional educators" who sought to dwell on this rather than the impotant job she has before her.

At any rate, I'm glad to be retired. I no longer have to deal with public misinformation and misconceptions like you have posted above.

Oh, I reads yer post really gud, BoF. Ima thinkin' my publik eddiecashun was a real gud un. Gud 'nuff for me to sees what y'all is a-sayin' here.

Fact of the matter, BoF, is that this thread is about the Secretary of Education and a problem she has with a program on PBS. So, I did a little checking on PBS and what it's all about. It's administered by The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a private, non-profit entity created and funded in part by Congress. According to them, they do the following......



Gee! They educate? Wow! What a strange thing that a federally-funded agency that claims to educate might come under the critique of the Secretary of Education. What the hell was she thinking? Sheesh! What in the world might she do next? Actually find out if our kids are learning to read?

Then let Margaret Spellings get about the job of finding some way to help kids learn reading, math, science, social studies, art, music, vocational training, etc.

I'm sure she can find something better to do with her time than pandering to James Dobson and that bunch of basket cases by finding fault with a cartoon episode.

Like I say, it's going to be a long four years. Maybe if I sleep through it I won't miss quite as much as Rip Van Winkle. In fact, that might be the best--least painful--way to cope with Bush and his crowd.

Oops! Double Post