I had three completely unrelated ideas I wanted to post on this morning, so rather than flood the blog with posts, I decided to post once with a brief comment on each. First, I want to weigh in on the Imus controversy. Primarily I wanted to show the group Meet the Press from April 15 (direct link to transcript was unavailable at time of post). Gwen Ifill and David Brooks, two people I respect immensely as journalists (even though Ifill's delivery is typically more fit for print), act like they don't even want to speak to each other at the end of the discussion.
Next, page 2 of the Kansas City Star, noted that there is a growing group of academics who wish to rebuild the internet. The basic challenge facing this project is "balancing the interests of various constituencies" namely, the public, the providers and business. The main programs:
Stanford program
Carnegie Mellon program
Rutgers program
National Science Foundation's GENI program
Finally, the Kansas City Star also speculated upon the possible demise of No Child Left Behind, the education legislation mandating increased testing of students. Apparently much of the Republican support for the bill in 2001 has melted away. Sam Brownback and Roy Blunt have stated support for a clause allowing states to opt of federally mandating testing. Unfortunately, the demise is not a certainty because Ted Kennedy is among other high ranking Democrats in stating his opposition that repealing the initiative would "turn back the clock on reform". My family's problem with the law has always been consistent: there is no accountability for the primary entities, the students. Students are neither rewarded nor penalized for their scores. The schools and districts are the only entities being held accountable.
Up for debate, a fix for the NCLB initiative I have devised (though I will not claim that it has not been produced before, only that the thought came to me this morning over waffles through no prior research on the concept). Give tax credits to families whose students perform at 'proficient' or 'exemplary'. This avoids direct bribing of students but advances the idea that students that come from high achieving and involved families should be rewarded. There can be a strict state standard, or a sliding scale based off of income. The primary point is that families are not rewarded solely for producing children (current child tax credit), but are rewarded for having children who achieve at high levels (have a greater propensity to produce towards the greater good).
Thoughts?
Mandatory tests for school promotion have been tried in New York, but I can't seem to find recent articles on how well that program has worked. (Longitudinal studies would be ideal).
ReplyDeleteIntuitively, it seems to solve two problems:
a) it incents student effort, since repeating a grade (and losing your established social connections) is a pretty intense punishment for most kids,
b) it helps create more consistent peer groups, for easier group education.
Tax breaks to parents has the difficulty that it might not motivate parents who pay little or no taxes, and low income families seem to be our biggest educational priority. Also, it might not address the more likely systemic problem of parents who cannot afford to shift family resources away from work towards co-educating their children.
Government reimbursement coupled with mandatory summer schools or tutoring for some students might be another interesting, though perhaps costly, alternative approach.
What is the limit of providing children an education? What do we do with the 18 year old 8th grader? How about the 21 year old high school senior? How many grades are students going to fail before they are removed? How do we ensure that students are removed due to their own failures and not teacher or parent oversight (ie- Bobby needed glasses, Susie is dyslexic, but neither students knew)?
ReplyDelete