James Crawford wrote this blog post about the topic, in which he linked this page of quotes from candidates about education and this page linking candidates to their advisors for education policy.
And because I'm most interested in Obama right now, I read this statement by his advisor, Linda Darling-Hammond.
As a teacher, I can assure anyone who wants to know that NCLB isn't doing what it's supposed to be doing. There are teachers in my school who openly confess to teaching to the test and simultaneously bemoan the fact that they can't cover everything the students need to know about the subject matter. This semester will be my first teaching an End of Course Test class, English I, and I'm not so sure I'll be able to hold out against the pressure. I mean, it's not just whether or not I plan my lessons around the test itself. The entire county has "streamlined" unit plans and lesson plans to make sure all the teachers teach to the test. I just heard an assistant principal say that if he goes from one English I teacher's room to another, he should be able to see the same things being taught at the same time. Good God! Where's teacher autonomy these days? What happened to trusting well-trained and highly qualified teachers to do what's right for the kids? To return to my point, teaching to tests isn't making sure no kid gets left behind; it's making sure they're all getting sub-par education. Expensive standardized testing will never be able to show what teacher grading can about a student's progress through the year. (And here I'll plug FairTest.Org.) What current NCLB legislation overlooks is that it takes more than one type of measurement to really determine a student's growth.
So, if you care about what a teacher thinks should matter in the upcoming election, then be sure to focus on what the candidates are saying and promising about education. NCLB doesn't need just reform and funding. It need a complete overhaul.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Some thoughts on Obama
(Xpost)
I keep hearing and reading rumors about Obama. Lots of people will believe whatever they hear, and it's especially easy when the subject of the rumor is different, in appearance, history, and in name, than any other president we've had before; different than most of the people I hear spreading (and believing) the rumors.
The thing is, when people spread (or believe) rumors about Obama being Muslim, even though he says he is not, it's fear-mongering. The rumors are there to make it easy for some people to simply discount Obama as a viable candidate. I think it's unfortunate to be so convinced by rumors about someone's suitability for office that he's not worth another look.
And I really think it goes beyond the scope of what the Bible says we're able to do when judging whether or not someone is a Christian. If I say I'm a Christian, but because I'm Eastern Orthodox and not whatever other brand of Christianity anyone else is, and that person decides for me that I'm not Christian because our expressions of faith don't match up, well...that's just plain offensive. Because, when I put myself in that situation, I have to think, "How does anyone else get to tell me whether or not I'm a Christian?"
So, if Barack Obama says he's a Christian, and he discusses his faith and how it has influenced his life and the way he approaches social and political issues, then it would be beyond the pale for me to say he's not a True Christian (TM) just because it's a different brand than my own. That really is a matter of the heart, and IIRC, it's God who looks at the heart!
And, just to carry my pov a little bit further, if we are allowed to consider the fruit to determine whether or not someone is a Christian, then it seems to me the best thing we can do in the case of any of our candidates--or current/past presidents, for that matter--is to consider what they say they believe and then what they do about it. Look at real records, and not at rumors.
That's being a conscientious voter.
I keep hearing and reading rumors about Obama. Lots of people will believe whatever they hear, and it's especially easy when the subject of the rumor is different, in appearance, history, and in name, than any other president we've had before; different than most of the people I hear spreading (and believing) the rumors.
The thing is, when people spread (or believe) rumors about Obama being Muslim, even though he says he is not, it's fear-mongering. The rumors are there to make it easy for some people to simply discount Obama as a viable candidate. I think it's unfortunate to be so convinced by rumors about someone's suitability for office that he's not worth another look.
And I really think it goes beyond the scope of what the Bible says we're able to do when judging whether or not someone is a Christian. If I say I'm a Christian, but because I'm Eastern Orthodox and not whatever other brand of Christianity anyone else is, and that person decides for me that I'm not Christian because our expressions of faith don't match up, well...that's just plain offensive. Because, when I put myself in that situation, I have to think, "How does anyone else get to tell me whether or not I'm a Christian?"
So, if Barack Obama says he's a Christian, and he discusses his faith and how it has influenced his life and the way he approaches social and political issues, then it would be beyond the pale for me to say he's not a True Christian (TM) just because it's a different brand than my own. That really is a matter of the heart, and IIRC, it's God who looks at the heart!
And, just to carry my pov a little bit further, if we are allowed to consider the fruit to determine whether or not someone is a Christian, then it seems to me the best thing we can do in the case of any of our candidates--or current/past presidents, for that matter--is to consider what they say they believe and then what they do about it. Look at real records, and not at rumors.
That's being a conscientious voter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)