Spellings calls for some interesting changes: merit pay for teachers in districts with "challenging" schools, overriding teachers union contracts when they conflict with NCLB sanctions and more assessments of students' progress in high school. It's not at all clear that Kennedy and Miller are going to oppose all such changes (though the teachers unions will press them to oppose the second).Without a doubt the support of Sen. Kennedy and Rep. Miller pushed NCLB over the finish line in 2001, just as the support from Sen Enzi and Rep. McKeon will serve the same function this year, assuming it passes. But the interesting part is that while the teachers' unions will have a seat at the table, they no longer dominate the Democratic position--which is to the benefit of kids.
Their support of the 2001 legislation represented a sharp shift from the Democrats' approach to the 1994 reauthorization, which added more money but did little about accountability. Kennedy and Miller, impressed by the success of state accountability programs in the intervening years and acting out of a heartfelt conviction that schools without accountability were poorly serving disadvantaged children, led their party to a sharp change on policy.
2. Over the weekend, the NY Times ran this piece, Locking Up the Ghost of Congress Past, in which the Times argues for an independent body to police the ethics of Congress. The impetus of teh Times editorial is the departure of former Rep. Bob Ney to prison. Bob Bauer accurately notes:
In these circumstances, where criminal laws were broken, it is not wise to expect too much from the House. If it gets into the middle of things, it will complicate the lives of prosecutors who, responding to the public clamor for justice, are fully capable of conducting the investigations in an orderly and eventually effective manner. This problem is not solved by having “independent” ethics professionals act in the place of Members of Congress. At least Members answer to the public, just as prosecutors are accountable to the Executive Branch. Those who are “independent” act, by definition, with less accountability, or they would not be branded “independent.” To have these independents foul up a criminal investigation is even less desirable than leaving investigative authority—including the authority to suspend investigations while prosecutors do their work—to Members of Congress.The problem with an "independent ethics enforcement body" for Congress is that the result will be just the opposite of what's intended. The well-intentioned goal is to increase the public's faith in Congress, but such a "reform" results in an image of "save us from ourselves" that does more damage to Congress than any Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney or Jim Traficant can do as whole. Ethics is a personal matter and outside of a few general guidelines special to the circumstances of Congress, enforcing ethics by an outide agency defeats the purpose of election people to Congress--namely that they, while human, are supposed to hold themselves to a higher standard of behavior.
3. Jenny D asks, what is the purpose of education? Some good responses are forming. Here is my answer:
- Provide all students with the basic skills and knowledge to allow them to function as critically thinking adults in the political, social, and economic life of the American Republic.
- To equip young people with the skills and abilities to learn more than the basics, in essence teaching children how to learn.
- Provide them with a framework for solving the problems they will inevitably meet in life, including respect for differences.
4. Dr. Helen has this post about the backlash against women who might have a glass of wine or two in front of their kids.
Women are apparently up in arms about other women who dare (gasp!) to have a glass or two of wine with their friends. The cocktail-drinking women want to be with kids but they dare to have a good time as they do so. Apparently, for parents to have a lick of fun is an anomaly in our kid-centered society today.My wife doesn't drink much, but never has even before children. This just seems like so much competitiveness to me to be the "perfect" mother that women seem to have forgotten how to be individual women.
I watched the video which is here and found the judgemental attitude of the expert a bit much . The "expert" is described as a psychiatrist who is a professor at Columbia University affiliated Harlem hospital and has four children. She seems a bit preachy in her tone, especially in the video where she acts as if parents drink a glass of beer or wine in front of their kids is somehow modeling irresponsible behavior to the kids that will start them on a lifelong path to alcoholism. I remember my kid coming home once from a Dare program at school and telling me that the class was told by an officer that their parents should not be drinking around them at all, that this was setting an example that drinking was acceptable. It is? I don't think so, unless you are a raging alcoholic and that is not what we are talking about here.
The heroine in our story here, Ms. Wilder-Taylor points out in the show that it is about morality--that people are so judgemental about what parents can do, that parents, especially moms are stressed out. And the worst part? It is women doing it to other women. The breast feeding dilemma, working versus non-working mothers, now women can't have wine with their kids around. (Link in original)
5. Much has been made about Ann Coulter's demeaning comments at CPAC. I too have posted the open letter to CPAC, mostly because I don't want conservatives to be in a sitaution of the pot calling the kettle black. Note that I am not suggesting Coulter be muzzled, she has right to speak her mind. I am suggesting that CPAC and other groups trying to set a good example of conservatives think long and hard about the kind of image she portrays, particularly since she gets a great deal of press. Just because she has a right to say what she thinks, doesn't mean that CPAC or any other group is obligated to give her a microphone. Rick Moran has a wonderful description of why he felt compelled to speak out against the "brain dead righties" who laughed at Coulter's remarks.
Gentlemanliness may be something of an outmoded concept to some but there is much praiseworthy in aspiring to be a gentleman. Good manners, a solicitousness toward women and children, and a moral grounding in one’s life are all part of what should be the outward manifestation of an adult man’s personae. Indeed, it is an artificial construct but a vital one nonetheless. It greases the wheels of discourse if the person you are talking to knows when to listen and when to keep their mouth shut – something that is sorely lacking in political discourse today. And the only way to do that successfully is to be aware of the emotional temperature of the party with which you are discoursing.I join him in his stance as a gentlemen. You can disagree with someone's, but that doesn't give you leave to demean or criticize them as a person.
No comments:
Post a Comment