Are there 'good' things in the bill that could with 'conservative leadership' be implemented that would 'de facto' reduce the federal influence in education while yet returning the $$$$ that have 'inadvertantly' found their way to Washington?
The bill is a compromise, but in my view a bad one, in which we lost much more than we gained. The two best items are the inclusion of private and religious groups in the eligible "tutoring" contractors, and the increased flexibility in the way the states use federal money.
One very bad element is the negative sanctions placed on "uncertified" teachers. That will keep competent but non-ed-school types, like retired military and engineers, from getting teaching jobs.
Cheers,
Richard F.
I guess maybe I should have finished that education minor, before becoming a 'certified, or is that certifiable, accountant. {;~)
Thanks for the 'strengths and weaknesses' clarifications, Richard. I can't do more than any other citizen can do; but, I'll add my voice to yours, so that we are heard, in pushing for more 'wisdom'(school of life) and less 'knowledge'(life of school) in the classrooms. In so many cases I have often found that MBA stands for 'More B******t Added'--not ALL, but many.
If there are other 'highlights' of the bill, that I might miss on casual reading, or not get from the networks, or that are totally obfuscated by the verbage, I would appreciate any insights you care to provide. I have been picking up on your 'links' periodically, Richard; but, have found that I am at odds with, or misunderstand, Dr. Keyes. I can understand wanting 'better cards' to play with, and I keep wanting to get the 'cards' Dr. Keyes is calling for. However, until then, I would rather continue to make the best of the cards I've got, rather than 'fold', and give up the hand when there are cards yet to be drawn. Especially when I know that we win on the 'Final Draw'.
Merry Christmas, Richard, as we celebrate the birth of the One who has made us victorious in the battle we are constantly fighting.