[livius]

It is interesting. Someone (conservative, I think, although the right is getting so close to the extreme left now that it's hard to tell) sent me a rant about this very thing the other day.

It was indeed a rant, and I couldn't figure out what there was not to like about higher standards. In fact, I couldn't figure out her point at all.

What exactly is it that "conservatives" don't like about this proposal?

[Glenn]

What exactly is it that "conservatives" don't like about this proposal?

Throw a rock, hit a proposal.

As the governments are lousy stewards of education, why allow them to continue in that role at all?

[Sam Cree]

"I couldn't figure out what there was not to like about higher standards"

Higher standards are great. Putting the federal government in charge of them in this way is not. It requires an entirely new concept of what the country actually is. 'Course lots of Americans already have such a concept.

[Just mythoughts]

My specific problem is waiting until "high school" to set higher standards. The little HUMANOIDs have already been trained with no standards before they ever reach "high school".

Majority of teachers are far more worried about what is in their "UNION" contract than actually teaching children. Parents are very well aware of what school was like for them and the majority of them have no respect for most teachers.

We have a TEACHING problem not a TESTING problem!

[George W. Bush]

What exactly is it that "conservatives" don't like about this proposal?

Empowering the same groups who have caused the problems in the schools to implement their agenda and cement it into place forever.

Given the ignorance about the history of education 'reform' in this country, even among those of conservative tendencies, those of us who have successfully fought these educrats and social engineers in the public schools don't have much use for a bunch of latecomers who march in and promptly fall for the latest round of retreaded lies from the liberal education establishment.

Never mind. Education activists will defeat this again. The enemies of sound education will not win, no matter how many gullible people are taken in by their rhetoric and propaganda.

[TaxRelief]

This proposal is based on flawed logic, and has several hidden motives, one of which is to hand over the control of homeschools, private schools, vouchers, charter schools and religious education in general, to the government.

The group is garnering support based on three unrealistic premises: 1) All teenagers can succeed academically; 2) A high school diploma is the only route to life success: And 3)the government should have sole control over the definition of "successful".

Fact that the government ignores number 1: Many teenagers do not have the interest in academics and/or are not academically inclined. All kids have an aptitude for something, but as long as a bunch of do-gooders believe that everyone should focus on academics, they are continuing to ignore both the individual and reality.

Fact that the government ignores number 2: Teenagers should be allowed to leave school at 14 so that they can begin apprenticeships. They should be pursuing careers that are consistent with their aptitudes. As long as these busy-bodies continue the rhetoric that implies that kids can only learn in government controlled institutions, many are doomed to failure.

Fact that the government ignores number 3: The argument for keeping kids in school (a real money-grab if there ever was one) that ranges from "even if they are a carpenter, they need to be able to add" to "death rates are higher for people without a diploma" does not give the government the right to define "achievement".

Arguments in favor of "lowering the drop-out rate" or "raising the standards" are bogus cover-ups for:
"We don't want unemployed kids on the streets during the day";
"We can't control what is happening inside a private enterprise";
"We can't cut the taxpayer allotment to public schools, because every kid needs to be at grade level";
"Somebody will make it seem like we are giving preferences to certain groups".

Meanwhile, the individual child and his aptitude is completely dismissed. Does this better explain the problem conservatives have with this kind of plan?

[billbears]

What exactly is it that "conservatives" don't like about this proposal?

Hmmmmm, let's see. Well we have the Tenth Amendment to contend with, but that's a nevermind since politicians don't bother the Constitution anymore. There was another reason somewhere, oh yes, perhaps because it's not under the power of the national government? A conservative President once called for elimination of the Dept of Education and now we have a 'conservative' President not only wanting to expand it but to centralize education even more. That's 'incrementalism' that is. Progress in the wrong direction

[searchandrecovery]

What exactly is it that "conservatives" don't like about this proposal?

Well, why not just hand all babies over to the federal "government" at birth to raise? Parents would be allowed to visit on weekends, of course.