Ravenwood - 01/31/05 08:00 AM
Officials at a New England school district are ticked off at George W. Bush for making them accountable with his 'No Child Left Behind' act. So, they are taking it out on their kids by cancelling the annual spelling bee.
Assistant Superintendent of Schools Linda Newman said the decision to scuttle the event was reached shortly after the January 2004 bee in a unanimous decision by herself and the district's elementary school principals.And this woman is supposedly qualified to look out for the best interests of people's children. If I had kids, I wouldn't let her near them.The administrators decided to eliminate the spelling bee, because they feel it runs afoul of the mandates of the federal No Child Left Behind Act.
"No Child Left Behind says all kids must reach high standards," Newman said. "It's our responsibility to find as many ways as possible to accomplish this."
The administrators agreed, Newman said, that a spelling bee doesn't meet the criteria of all children reaching high standards -- because there can only be one winner, leaving all other students behind.
"It's about one kid winning, several making it to the top and leaving all others behind. That's contrary to No Child Left Behind," Newman said. [...]
"There was no debate at all. It was one of the easiest decisions," the assistant superintendent said because "there was no question among the administrators" that a spelling bee was "contrary to the expectations" of No Child Left Behind.
(Hat tip to James Taranto.)
UPDATE: After very public pressure, the school system has decided not to cancel the spelling bee.
Category: All Bush's Fault
Comments (15) top link me
Probably wasn't enough money left to fund it after she and the high school principals took their salaries and bonuses.
Posted by: Brian J. at January 31, 2005 8:09 AMI came in 2nd in a 6th-grade spelling bee so my self-esteem must have been crushed.
Come to think of it, they also used to keep score in my Tee-Ball and Little League games. One year, my team lost every game, yet we were not all put on a suicide watch.
How I have thus far avoided a life of government assistance and crime, I'll never know.
Posted by: roger at January 31, 2005 11:37 AMBut what business does the federal government have dictating education policy in the first place? I always thought that police powers like education and gun control were reserved to the states.
Posted by: Pasty at January 31, 2005 11:44 AMPasty,
I think this graph will answer your question.
Remember, when you play with the bull, you're likely to get the horns.
Posted by: Ravenwood at January 31, 2005 11:51 AMCall me dense, but I'm not exactly sure what you're showing me with that graph. I say that the fed is too involved in education, and you show me a graph (with a very strange varying time scale) that seems to show that federal education spending has increased. Wouldn't that prove exactly what I'm saying - that the federal government is too involved in education?
Isn't this really just another unfunded mandate/17th amendment issue?
Posted by: Pasty at January 31, 2005 6:14 PM"... gun control were reserved to the states."
No, Pasty, gun control is not reserved to the States! The right of the people to be armed shall not be infringed - by anybody, Fed, State, County, etc.
Your first sentence reads correctly though ;-}
Posted by: Jimmy Antley at January 31, 2005 6:19 PMYou got me there Jimmy. I was trying to hit Ravenwood's hot button issue and relate it to states' rights, but I sure messed that one up.
Posted by: Pasty at January 31, 2005 7:37 PMPasty,
I'm agreeing with you. I just wanted to illustrate why the states are so beholden to the Fed. They rely on the Fed for so much money that when the Fed says jump, the states say "How high?"
Posted by: Ravenwood at January 31, 2005 9:46 PMSo, yes, I am dense. Two screwups in as many posts. That's rough.
Posted by: Pasty at February 1, 2005 12:55 PMPasty: If the federal government is spending money on education (which it shouldn't), then it can ask for evidence that it's getting something for the money. That's all NCLB is (aside from the statistically boneheaded idea of demanding to see progress in every race or ethnic group).
As for that principal - I forget who said that her guiding principle is, "No child getting ahead". Seems to be a pretty common idea in our socialist-ridden education establishment.
Posted by: markm at February 1, 2005 5:19 PMBy the way, is "Pasty" a reference to northern Michigan meat pies, or to something else?
Posted by: markm at February 1, 2005 5:25 PMSorry, never been to UP, or Michigan at all for that matter. It's just a nickname based on my last name.
Posted by: Pasty at February 1, 2005 8:09 PMmarkm:
Oh, great! Now you've got me craving pasties.
Next I'll be wanting some Pinconning cheese.
Mmmmm...Pinconning cheese!
Back on topic:
The "educators" at this skoole disstrekt mussed bee verri prowd uv thare akomplaschmunts.
I used to think that NCLB had some redeeming value, in that it required some *accountability* in public education.
But it really doesn't. (The states are just dumbing down already dumb proficiency standards.) It seems to me, this will further polarize the rich (who have eduational alternatives) and the poor. It may upset the applecart of public ed, but the price will be borne by a great many students who deserve better. A mind being a terrible thing to waste, and all. (And please, don't tell me minds are already being wasted. NCLB is going to massively increase the number of middle-of-the-road children whose education is being written off. A terrible price to pay, and a real injustice.)
I think I am going to set up a cottage-industry home school. Seriously.
Oh, I get it now. It's an economic development tool.
That's why vouchers are needed.
Posted by: Ravenwood at February 2, 2005 6:04 AM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
