Obama pushes reform of Bush education law

Obama pushes reform of Bush education law
Sources: ‘College or career’ goal will replace academic proficiency deadline

The Obama administration is proposing a sweeping overhaul of President Bush’s signature education law, No Child Left Behind, and will call for broad changes in how schools are judged to be succeeding or failing, as well as for the elimination of the law’s 2014 deadline for bringing every American child to academic proficiency.

I applaud President Obama for addressing the abysmal state of America's educational system; I think he has it wrong.

A recent article from MSNBC (quoted above) seems to hint that Obama's plan is to push for vocational readiness as an alternative to traditional education. This emphasis would seem to indicate that the administration believes that there are those who are incapable of being educated.

It may be true that there are students who are incorrigible, incapable of being taught in the traditional setting; those who suffer from learning disabilities for example. It is more likely however that these students suffer from a failing educational system that is mired in bureaucracy and hindered by unions that refuse to take responsibility for the failure.

The crux of the problem is not an alternative path to success; I can agree with that path as long as it is voluntary; the problem lies with the process.

As a parent of four I am concerned that should the teachers fail to do their job my children will be forced to pay the price. Who will determine that my child is incapable of continuing along the traditional educational path to college? Who will say that my children must choose vocational education; what criteria will be used to evaluate the teachers who make that decision?

It seems that the option is a way to escape responsibility, a way to account for a failing system. When a school is faced with a block of failures they can hide those failures by transferring the children to a vocational program. Nothing to see here; everyone just move along.

The article also went on to say that:

The secretary of education, Arne Duncan, foreshadowed the elimination of the 2014 deadline in a September speech, referring to it as a “utopian goal,” and administration officials have since made clear that they want the deadline eliminated. In recent meetings with representatives of education groups, Department of Education officials have said they also want to eliminate the school ratings system built on making “adequate yearly progress” on student test scores.

Why would the administration push to remove accountability from the system? The administration has never had a problem with "Utopian goals" before. All we have to do is look to the health care plan that seeks to insure the entire U.S. population or perhaps its stance on Cap and Trade. What then is the impetus behind such a move?

It could be nothing more insidious than a change in philosophy. Given the propensity of this administration to favor Marxist dogma it is more likely an attempt to remake the country in some fundamental fashion.

The New Proletariat

If the transforming of our educational system marks the move towards a socialist ideology then we have cause to worry.

Socialist/communist/Marxist systems have need to keep the work force stocked and  a need to limit the "educated". A population that is well educated understands the proper function of government and rails against its abuses. On the other hand a population of "worker bees" forsake individuality and live to serve the hive. Given this administrations attempts to minimize American exceptionalism and make us part of the "Global Community" it is not a stretch to believe that this is just another incrementialist move to the left.

Granted the educational system in this country needs to be reformed. The question is are we to remove accountability from the system and force students to pay for the failing system; or should we force the system to rise to meet the challenge?

Our best defense against governmental abuses lies in the education of our young. We cannot cede the loss; we must not accept "good enough" where our future is involved; we must not give up on our children. 


Bookmark our site!

Consider advertising on our site!

Interview: Blogs for Victory

Jumping in Pools is proud to present its 50th interview in our on-going series. Blogs for Victory is a popular site that was formerly known as "Blogs for Bush," one of the most influential blogs of 2004. Be sure to check out their site, and make sure to bookmark them if you like them.

1. When did Blogs for Bush become Blogs for Victory and how did the transition go?

A: We transitioned Blogs for Bush into Blogs for Victory in November of 2007.It was a tough decision to switch, but with the 2008 election season brewing, it made sense to look ahead and re-brand.

2. What has been President Obama's best act as President so far? Worst?

A.. Whenever he's not making a decision is a good time. The idea that this moron has any influence on national and international issues scares me.

3. Any favorites yet for the 2012 race?

A. No. I am going into the next presidential election with an open mind.

4. What's the best part about running your site?

A. It's nice knowing that what I am doing could be making a difference.

5. Do you see the GOP winning the White House in 2012?

A. I see the GOP winning Congress back this year, and the White House in 2012. It is inevitable that left-wing ideas may resonate on the campaign trail, but the country is more conservative leaning than they realize, and the people don't tolerate it.

http://blogsforvictory.com/

Bookmark our site!

Consider advertising on our site!

Hitchens: Bush is Still the Man

Christopher Hitchens has a new piece in Slate-- not decrying the Christian conservative 43rd President of the United States, but explaining....

We might have avoided the Iraq war, even though both Bill Clinton and Al Gore had repeatedly and publicly said that another and conclusive round with Saddam Hussein was, given his flagrant defiance of all the relevant U.N. resolutions, unavoidably in our future. And the inconvenient downside to avoiding the Iraq intervention is that a choke point of the world economy would still be controlled by a psychopathic crime family that kept a staff of WMD experts on hand and that paid for jihadist suicide bombers around the region. In his farewell interviews, President Bush hasn't been able to find much to say for himself on this point, but I think it's a certainty that historians will not conclude that the removal of Saddam Hussein was something that the international community ought to have postponed any further. (Indeed, if there is a disgrace, it is that previous administrations left the responsibility undischarged.)

The obvious failures—in particular the increasing arrogance and insanity of the dictatorships of Iran and North Korea—are at least failures in their own terms: failure to live up to the original rhetoric and failure to mesh human rights imperatives with geo-strategic and security ones. Again, it's not clear to me how any alternative administration would have behaved. And the collapse of our financial system has its roots in a long-ago attempt, not disgraceful in and of itself, to put home ownership within reach even of the least affluent. So the old question "compared to what?" does not allow too much glibness.

Inescapable as it is, "compared to what?" isn't much of a defense. And nor has this column been intended exactly as a defense, either. It's just that there's an element of hubris in all this current hope-mongering and that I am beginning to be a little bit afraid to think of what Wednesday morning will feel like.

I really like Hitchens and he shows his intelligence and his stability. If only more people were like him... (and I like him even though he voted for Obama.) His level-headedness shows how we need to proceed: bold but humble.

Good for Stephen Harper

I don't know if anyone's been following Canadian politics (except for Joe), but I'd like to take a moment to say good for the Prime Minister, Stephen Harper. Just this year, the ruling Canadian Conservative Party won another plurality in the Parliament. In this manner, the Prime Minister was able to stay on in his position and was working on an economic plan to help Canada out of recession.

Unfortunately, the three losing parties decided that since the Conservatives fell just short of majority, the Conservatives were not competent. This challenge was based on what was considered a poor economic plan by Harper's government. Unfortunately, this infighting will further damage the chances of resolution.

This governmental impasse increases the power of the Quebecois, which is now a dealmaker in Parliamentary politics. The three other Canadian parties should either put up or show up when Parliament goes back in session. That, or face increasing popularity for Harper's government.