Posted on 04/05/2005 9:25:57 PM PDT by Crackingham
Education Secretary Margaret Spellings plans to fundamentally change enforcement of the No Child Left Behind law, giving preferential treatment to states that prove they're serious about raising achievement, Bush administration officials say. The change could affect the education of millions of students as states seek federal approval on everything from teacher quality to the measuring of student progress.
In the first example, the Education Department plans to give some states more freedom in how they test hundreds of thousands of children with milder disabilities. But only states that can prove progress or a strong commitment to improve will be seriously considered for that flexibility, administration officials told The Associated Press on Tuesday. The idea is to get something in return for offering such flexibility, said one official familiar with the changes, such as increased learning and "narrowing the achievement gap."
Shrinking the test-score gap between white and minority students is a central goal of the 2001 law, which aims to get all children to grade level in reading and math by 2014. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the policies had not been formally announced. Spellings has invited top school officers from the states to Mount Vernon, Va., on Thursday to unveil the new enforcement approach and the special education policy. Education Department leaders declined comment until then.
The new enforcement approach is the first significant change under Spellings, who helped write the law as Bush's domestic policy chief in the White House before becoming secretary in January. Spellings has determined that the Education Department hasn't focused enough on the big picture — whether students are learning — when it reviews and approves state education plans. States must get approval if they want changes in how they hold schools accountable. As examples, the department now plans to more closely review the states' progress in graduating students, showing gains in early reading and providing report cards to the public.
"If they're going to judge states' efforts on meeting the intent of No Child Left Behind, then I think it's going to be a great move and something everyone will be in support of," said Scott Young, senior policy specialist for the National Conference of State Legislatures. "It would put more focus on results, not on making sure states comply with certain regulations."
That's really great, especially when you consider the Constitution doesn't give the feds the authority to do any of it!
"That's really great, especially when you consider the Constitution doesn't give the feds the authority to do any of it!"
Absolutely right. Shouldn't be a Department of Education.
By the way, where does the Constitution give congress the authority to regulate copyright?
Article 1, I believe.
Translation: They'll work overtime to bring down white scores.
Article 1, section 8
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
"Article 1, I believe."
Just read it over again, and I'm not finding it.
Okay, there it is. Thanks.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
But that says "Authors and Inventors," "Science and useful Arts," and "limited Times."
Frankly, it doesn't look to me like it was originally intended to cover fiction or music at all. In addition, I think a "limited time" would exclude a period longer than the inventor's lifespan.
By extending copyright the way the have, the legislature has actuall turned copyrights into negotiable securities, which can be bought and sold by people with no relationship whatsoever to the original "author or inventor."
I think it's past time for us to rethink this whole issue. I really, really hate it that copyright requires me to enrich record company drones even if I want a CD by a dead musician.
"I think it's past time for us to rethink this whole issue. I really, really hate it that copyright requires me to enrich record company drones even if I want a CD by a dead musician."
Then don't buy it. Or is that too simple?
The families of deceased writers have a right to collect royalties just as much as the families of deceased patent holders. The works wouldn't have existed without them, and payment is reward for the fruits of their labors. And buying / selling copyrights is a commodity - a right to own and dispose of property that the constitution guarantees to provide a system of commerce.
99.9 times out of 100 the people trying to make an 'intellectual' argument against basic intellectual property rights just want something free, no matter how noble they claim their motives are.
I am not yet a public school teacher, but I disagree strongly with "all". That includes all students with disabilities, those whose parents don't make them come to school or do homework, those with crappy chaotic homes, etc.
I am willing to do everything I know of to help my students learn what they need to know. But I disagree with being 100% accountable when I can only do one third of the work. The parents and child have responsibility here too.
The truth of the matter is that even with all the positive benefits; NCLB is a failure and the govt has to CYA now push has come to shove.
Sad thing is a few years back when I voiced the positives to other teachers; they all laughed. Told me it would never come to pass. They will prove up in the end.
They all laughed about teacher testing and vast majority haven't qualified through testing; but are qualified through govt changes & loopholes.
"Then don't buy it. Or is that too simple?"
No, it's too simplistic.
"The families of deceased writers have a right to collect royalties just as much as the families of deceased patent holders."
Who says either of them do? Not the Constitution. I don't see where the Constitution authorizes copyright law for fiction, music, painting, etc. at all. And it certainly doesn't mention families.
Besides, in jumping immediately to the emotional issue of widows and orphans, you draw attention away from the real problem: far more often than the families of deceased writers, those profiting from ridiculously extended copyrights are corporations with no familial ties to the original copyright holder.
"The works wouldn't have existed without them, and payment is reward for the fruits of their labors."
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
To them. Not to a succession of heirs for all time, or even necessarily for their own lifetimes. And certainly not to a company that has merely purchased the copyright as a financial security. It says "for limited Times to Authors and Inventors," not "in perpetuity to whoever buys the copyright."
"And buying / selling copyrights is a commodity - a right to own and dispose of property that the constitution guarantees to provide a system of commerce."
A commodity? No, a commodity is something with intrinsic worth, like frozen concentrated orange juice or hog bellies.
Copyrights have become financial securities, like shares in a mortgage trust, created solely by government fiat and with no intrinsic worth of their own.
A copyright as financial security has worth only because the government promises to send men with guns to punish anyone who violates it. And why does the government promise that? To protect poor, otherwise starving artists? Not usually, no. It's usually to guarantee media giants the power to overcharge the crap out of the public with one paw, while shafting the musicians with the other.
I don't believe it was the intent of the Framers to create a class of financial security that serves only to enrich people *who had no part in the given creation* by permanently restricting public access. It such had been their intent, surely they would have done it.
The plain meaning of the Constitution is to secure exclusive rights to Authors and Inventors *themselves*, and that for limited times. There's nothing there about using the power of the government to protect huge, parasitical record companies.
"99.9 times out of 100 the people trying to make an 'intellectual' argument against basic intellectual property rights just want something free, no matter how noble they claim their motives are."
In general, the strategy of attacking the motives of the opposition to avoid addressing their arguments is the province of the left. I really hate to see it here.
Our copyright laws have been perverted to the point that they serve mainly as a mercantilist support of huge corporations. Now, I have nothing against huge corporations, or even huge corporations that make huge profits; but the government shouldn't be propping them up where a free market would sweep them away, and doing so at the expense of the public.
Matter of fact, the public gets smacked twice: our taxes pay for the enforcement of these mercantilist laws, then at the checkout counter we get overcharged to keep record company executives in cocaine and underage male prostitutes.
What I would like to see is the record companies starved to death by online marketing and paid download of music on the Internet, all proceeds direct to the musicians.
Further, I would like a halt to the treatment of copyrights as financial securities to be traded, and a sane limit on the periods of exclusive use.
marker
Try Article One, Section 8.
I start my student teaching next semester and I am already discouraged. There seem to be so many problems. Part of it seems to be that no institution can turn on a dime. If kids have received a lousy education for 10 years, how do we hold them and their current teachers accountable for their failing the test? Where are we going to get these highly qualified teachers when it is taking me (with a Bachelors degree in a related field) 3 years to get an ed degree, AND the degree is required, shutting out people with good, solid, general knowledge.
I have a bunch of core content that I am supposed to teach, but have the higher ups bothered to make sure that the test is aligned to that content? I hear that it is possible that they have not.
It's looking to me like I am about to be frustrated at every turn.
Don't get discouraged, believe in the reason why you went back to school to become a teacher; and take that concept into the classroom. Teachers have to believe they can make a difference even if it is just for one student.
The politics is just the pendulum swing and goes both ways over time. Testing is not the complete answer for families lacking parenting skills and you will witness it's effects in the classroom.
The crazy thing you will see is that the best teachers are the 25 year veterans, not those highly qualified by testing. Teaching is like everything else and gets better with age. You complete ED degree, pass all the testing, background checks & license/certification, continue to complete more coursework for required Masters, AND THEN you enter the classroom and the true learning begins. You learn more in the classroom the first several years than any ED program can provide.
Good luck with student teaching and teaching is rewarding; just don't let the politics get to you.
You will laugh, but when I completed my student teaching; it was at local high school. Other teachers dumped all their FAS, trouble makers, and problems into my classes, ha. Constantly, shaking kids down for stealing things and everything you can imagine. Had to teach physics, electronics, ect, and constantly just stay ahead of a few sharp kids in the classroom. Didn't sleep for 6 months but really ramped up my abilities and made me a better teacher. You will learn more during student teaching than the last 3 years, no joke.
So again good luck and look for the positive; you will see it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.