Education Secretary: 82% of US public schools may ‘fail’ this year.

[Ponce]

Perfect slaves will we have in two more generations that all that they will be able to say will "yes sir" and "no sir"
================================================== =======


Education Secretary: 82% of US public schools may ‘fail’ this year.

By Stephen C. Webster
Wednesday, March 9th, 2011 -- 4:51 pm

"No Child Left Behind is broken and we need to fix it now," he said, according to a transcript provided by the Department of Education.

"This law has created dozens of ways for schools to fail and very few ways to help them succeed," Duncan added. "We should get out of the business of labeling schools as failures and create a new law that is fair and flexible, and focused on the schools and students most at risk."

Last year, just 32 percent of schools were failing the government's rigorous testing standards.

Duncan was speaking to the House Education and Work Force Committee.

The education policies, passed by the Bush administration in 2002, set a number of highly unrealistic deadlines and requirements, and tied school funding to achieving those goals.

Critics have argued the reforms changed schools from centers of learning to testing factories, increasingly irrelevant to students and communities. Increasingly, even Republicans have come to agree that the policies are largely broken.

"The Obama administration’s proposed blueprint for reforming No Child Left Behind recognizes and rewards high-poverty schools and districts that show improvement based on progress and growth," the Department of Education said, in an advisory.

"States and districts would have to identify and intervene in schools that persistently fail to close gaps. For schools making more modest gains, states and districts would have more flexibility to determine improvement and support options."

“Our proposal will offer schools and districts much more flexibility in addressing achievement gaps, but we will impose a much tighter definition of success,” Duncan said.

“Simply stated, if schools boost overall proficiency but leave one subgroup behind — that is not good enough. They need a plan that ensures that every child is being served.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/09/education-secretary-82-of-us-public-schools-may-fail-this-year/

[sunshine05]

The schools are broken. I've given up and will never place my kids in a public school again. If you read John Taylor Gatto, this is by design.

And it's not just public schools. There is a mindset of teachers today that really puzzles me. They like to push kids so that they are all the "same" and they all do this and they all think it's the right thing to do.

I had a meeting with my son's kindergarten teacher yesterday to discuss his progress. Now he goes to a small, private K and overall I've been impressed with how much he's learning. They have a pretty comprehensive curriculum that is not what the public school's use and it's working well and he loves it there. However, I came away from my teacher's conference feeling down and I think this is why:

He got his mid year report card which has W (still working on it;needs work) S (satisfactory) and E (excellent)
His grades:
Phonics - E+
Reading - E+
Math - E+
Social Studies/Science - E+
Writing - W+
Conduct - E

We spent most of the meeting discussing his poor writing and some other motor skills things, such as his ability with scissors. She never mentioned what we should do to continue to encourage his academic excellence. She just wants him caught up in hand writing and scissor usage. I told her those things really weren't very important to me and that he is making progress and will be fine. I told her I'm probably going to homeschool him for 1st grade and she feels that he will do great academically but she worries he will lose all the progress he has made socially and his abilities to follow instructions if he isn't in school. I left there feeling so down and couldn't really pinpoint why. Then after I thought about it later, it's that she implies that an institutional setting is somehow better than one on one learning from a parent, from me and I take that personally. And I think most teachers think that way. There's a certain arrogance. Yet, homeschooled kids continue to do better on standardized tests. So why is there still the belief that kids NEED school. I'll admit, I used to think that way too but I don't anymore. 17th in education in the industrialized world - no thanks.

[cheka.]

I've seen some of the programs on the chopping block. they are a terrible - nothing more than giveaways to the fs army. learning not included -

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=9093&utm_content=buffer3eb63&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Trump's Education Cuts Aren't 'Devastating,' They're Smart

It’s the end of the world as we know it—at least that’s what some people would have us believe about President Trump’s education budget.

It’s “a devastating blow to the country’s public education system,” according to National School Boards Assn. CEO Thomas Gentzel. More like a “wrecking ball,” says Lily Eskelsen García, president of the National Education Assn. teachers’ union. No, it’s a veritable “assault on the American Dream,” insists John B. King Jr., former Obama administration secretary of education.

Such hyperbole is reminiscent of the early 1980s, when President Reagan’s opponents battled his administration’s education cuts, and it’s about as inaccurate today as it was back then.

Trump wants to reduce the U.S. Department of Education’s discretionary budget by $9.2 billion, from $68.3 billion to $59.1 billion. Close to two-thirds of that reduction (63%) comes from eliminating programs that are duplicative or just don’t work.

The administration is proposing a 10% cut in TRIO programs and a cut of almost a third in GEAR UP programs. GEAR UP and TRIO (which despite the name consists of nine programs) are supposed to help at-risk students who hope to go to college, but who might not make it.

At the behest of the Education Department, the Mathematica Policy Research Group studied a TRIO program and found weaknesses, which it first reported in 2004. The final report found “no detectable effects” on college-related outcomes, including enrollment and completion of bachelor’s or associate’s degrees. In a striking acknowledgement that these programs don’t hold up under scrutiny, lobbyists for the programs got Congress to ban the Education Department from setting up control-group evaluations of TRIO and GEAR UP.

Another sign of dysfunction is that—despite a demonstrable lack of success—grants to run TRIO and GEAR UP programs almost always get renewed. For example, in California, 82% of those who had grants in 2006 to manage this “no detectable effects” TRIO program still had those grants a decade later.

The K-12 programs proposed for elimination in the Trump budget are similarly ineffective.

In 1994, the Clinton administration started the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program, which promised to provide disadvantaged children with after-school enrichment to improve their academic performance. Nearly $18 billion spent over two decades later, there’s scant evidence of success. “It’s a $1.2 billion after-school program that doesn’t work,” according to Mark Dynarski of the Brookings Institution. He should know.

Dynarski worked at the U.S. Department of Education during the Clinton administration and directed the 21st Century Community Learning Centers’ national evaluation while he was a researcher at Mathematica Policy Research. The three evaluations published between 2003 and 2005 concluded that the achievement of participating students was virtually the same, but their behavior was worse, compared with their peers who weren’t in the program.

Another program deservedly put on the chopping block is the School Improvement Grant (SIG) program. Enacted in 2001 as part of President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act, this program gave poorly performing schools fistfuls of cash to turn themselves around and raise student achievement. Turned out the SIG program was more buck than bang—lots more.

Total SIG program funding under the Bush administration was less than $126 million. Regular annual appropriations skyrocketed during Obama’s presidency, starting at $526 million. They remained near or north of a half billion dollars throughout his administration, totaling more than $7 billion to date—including a one-time infusion of $3 billion in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding.

The Obama administration publicly revealed the SIG program’s colossal failure on Jan. 18, 2017, just hours before President Obama’s appointees departed. According to the final evaluation by the American Institutes for Research and Mathematica Policy Research for the Education Department, SIG had “no significant impacts” on math achievement, reading achievement, high school graduation, or college enrollment across school and student subgroups.

Commenting on the evaluation, Andrew R. Smarick, a former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of education, called SIG “the greatest failure in the history of the U.S. Department of Education.” Seven billion dollars in taxpayer money was spent, and the results were the same, as Smarick put it, “as if this program had never existed.”

Cutting costly, ineffective government programs isn’t the end of the world. It’s part of “[our] moral duty... to make our government leaner and more accountable,” as Trump stated during a budget meeting in February. His budgetary effort to cut waste includes the Education Department for good reason.