Idaho is mentioned in the Wall Street Journal here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204840504578086773381885236.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop
I fear that I see a lot more "Vote No" signs than I do "Yes" signs around here, but I am voting "Yes" on all three propositions, with apologies to my brother-in-law who is the computer-guy for one of Idaho's high schools. (On the bright side--talk about job security!)
When Luna introduced these laws before, I was against the part that gave students laptops (Prop. 3). I have since re-considered. While I still agree that students are not likely to treat these laptops well, and I do not think it's government's business to give anyone a computer, the fact is that students treat textbooks just as poorly; and digital textbooks, so to speak, will be a lot cheaper than actual textbooks--not to mention the fact that textbooks become outdated fairly quickly, especially in subjects of Government and History. The other part of the laptop proposal is one that gives students a chance to study on-line, with the potential of early high school graduation. This is a chance for our best and brightest to work at their own speed and get ahead.
Proposition 2 is the most controversial proposition, in my opinion. This is the one that grants bonuses for teachers who do outstanding work, and allows for merit pay. I absolutely believe that teachers with high success rates should be rewarded more than teachers who run the clock from day to day. And while all sorts of teachers will say how hard the job is, and that it's not their fault if their classrooms do not perform well, and I'm not disagreeing with them, we all can look back and remember both our really outstanding teachers, and the horrible experiences we had in other classrooms. What concerns me about Proposition 2 is using standarized tests to evaluate a teacher's performance. I am very much against standardized testing, so this would have been a "No" vote, if it weren't for...
Proposition 1, which allows for more parental input. I believe that everything is best done at a local level, and this proposition puts more of the decision-making into the hands of local school administrators, and less into the hands of the National Teachers Association. As mentioned in the Wall Street Journal article linked above, the NEA has been a true hindrance to education across the nation. It's bad enough that our nation's education system has been essentially taken over by politicians, but it's even worse that these politicians are beholden to teacher's unions, who do not have the children's best interests at heart, contrary to their lofty claims, but their own pocketbooks and ambitions. Local control of schools doesn't even quite get to the heart of the matter--decisions about education are best made at home, and families have too few choices. Idaho's education system is not perfect, and these three propositions are not perfect, but Idaho should be proud to be one of the states proposing bold initiatives for education.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Halloween Humdrum
I clicked on an article entitled, Trick or treat? Trend to ban Halloween is mixed bag for educators, parents, thinking I might be in for a thoughtful discussion from both sides of the aisle. When political discourse can rarely be said to be "thoughtful," I don't know why I expected more from this article. (Is there an emoticon that suggests an eye-roll? Imagine one right here.)
From the article:
... said Skokie, Ill., District 69 Superintendent Quintin Shepherd, in a letter to parents. “Many students cannot afford costumes and there is an economic disparity. We also have students that are unable to participate for religious or cultural reasons.”
...“Why suck the fun out of school?” one student posted online on the school's website. “Halloween isn't a religious or political holiday; it's only about having fun.”
“It’s the best part of the school year,” posted another student. “Everyone dresses up and gives out candy. How can that be bad?”.
...Administrators say school is not the place for Halloween, and at least a few parents in Skokie agree.
“We'll take a personal day with my children away from school expressing ourselves through costume and possible Satan worshipping,” wrote one poster on the District 69 website.
(Did the author of this article NOT see the sarcasm here?!?!)
The article then goes on to blame high-stakes testing, political correctness, and the banning of everything from Christmas to the Pledge of Allegience. However, the fundamental question seems to be, Will we still get candy?
Here are some of my questions and thoughts--which may or may not be any more intelligent than anything I quoted above...
When a school district "bans" Halloween, what exactly does that mean? Is it the same as banning books? When a school bans a book, or a holiday, is it really preventing people from reading said book, or celebrating said holiday?
Do holiday celebrations serve an educational purpose? If so, in what ways? And if so, wouldn't trick-or-treating also serve an educational purpose? (In other words, are we being redundant?) If there is no educational purpose, do I need to finish asking this question?
And finally, is there anyone left in the world who thinks that candy is good for children's brains?
You can probably tell what my bias is here. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to start crusading against school parties. I'm just suggesting that this argument is yet another distraction from the real purpose of schooling and education.
From the article:
... said Skokie, Ill., District 69 Superintendent Quintin Shepherd, in a letter to parents. “Many students cannot afford costumes and there is an economic disparity. We also have students that are unable to participate for religious or cultural reasons.”
...“Why suck the fun out of school?” one student posted online on the school's website. “Halloween isn't a religious or political holiday; it's only about having fun.”
“It’s the best part of the school year,” posted another student. “Everyone dresses up and gives out candy. How can that be bad?”.
...Administrators say school is not the place for Halloween, and at least a few parents in Skokie agree.
“We'll take a personal day with my children away from school expressing ourselves through costume and possible Satan worshipping,” wrote one poster on the District 69 website.
(Did the author of this article NOT see the sarcasm here?!?!)
The article then goes on to blame high-stakes testing, political correctness, and the banning of everything from Christmas to the Pledge of Allegience. However, the fundamental question seems to be, Will we still get candy?
Here are some of my questions and thoughts--which may or may not be any more intelligent than anything I quoted above...
When a school district "bans" Halloween, what exactly does that mean? Is it the same as banning books? When a school bans a book, or a holiday, is it really preventing people from reading said book, or celebrating said holiday?
Do holiday celebrations serve an educational purpose? If so, in what ways? And if so, wouldn't trick-or-treating also serve an educational purpose? (In other words, are we being redundant?) If there is no educational purpose, do I need to finish asking this question?
And finally, is there anyone left in the world who thinks that candy is good for children's brains?
You can probably tell what my bias is here. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to start crusading against school parties. I'm just suggesting that this argument is yet another distraction from the real purpose of schooling and education.
Betrayal of American Education
Book review on American Spectator here: http://spectator.org/archives/2012/10/29/hustlers-hucksters-and-the-bet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)