PDA

View Full Version : Education Mantras (Great Society to NCLB)


TheLioness729
February 25th, 2005, 9:49pm
I am working on a paper, and as part of it I am doing a timeline on presidents "education views or mantras" from Johnson's Great Society (ESEA) to Bush's NCLB. I was having trouble with Nixon and am working on Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush. Clinton's was "Improving America's Schools Act". Are there any that really stand out? I am researching and getting State of the Union addresses which seem to say really similar puffed up things about how important education is but not specific plans :)

Anyone have ideas?

Lioness

snookers
February 25th, 2005, 10:01pm
Another paper??? You sure do have a lot of homework, Lioness. When's your Spring Break? :laugh:

hort1
February 25th, 2005, 10:18pm
Well, no president or candidate is going to come out on the record as "anti-education." They all, regardless of party, talk about the importance of education and promise (usually in the most general of terms) to strengthen, improve, or improve access to education.
In reality, not a lot gets done. There are probably many reasons - it's expensive; needs vary greatly depending on the level and location; and so many other factors come into play (poverty, for example). Plus, administrations come and go, and the control over education is spread out over many layers.

It isn't really clear to me from your post what the scope of your paper is, but the one thing that popped into my mind is the Head Start program, which I believe began under LBJ and continues to this day. I don't know that each president since then has emphasized it, but one approach would be to see how the program has changed with each administration.

Then again, that might be completely unrelated to what you are looking to do. Good luck!

TheLioness729
February 25th, 2005, 10:40pm
Another paper??? You sure do have a lot of homework, Lioness. When's your Spring Break? :laugh:

LOL! Break?!?!?! What's a break????

:cool2:

TheLioness729
February 25th, 2005, 10:44pm
Let's see...

L. Johnson - The Great Society (Elementary and Secondary Education Act
R. Nixon - ? (Southern Strategy?)
G. Ford
J. Carter
R. Reagan-A Nation at Risk (Looks like he had a lot of the same ideas as NCLB)'
GHW Bush-
B. Clinton - Improving Americas Schools Act
GW Bush-No Child Left Behind

It looks like L. Johnson, GHW and GW, and Reagan (?) referred to themselves as "education presidents". I am not seeing evidence of very much change in the last forty years when it comes to this issue. I think there are other issues involved here :)

Thanks!!!!

:gvibes:
Lioness





Well, no president or candidate is going to come out on the record as "anti-education." They all, regardless of party, talk about the importance of education and promise (usually in the most general of terms) to strengthen, improve, or improve access to education.
In reality, not a lot gets done. There are probably many reasons - it's expensive; needs vary greatly depending on the level and location; and so many other factors come into play (poverty, for example). Plus, administrations come and go, and the control over education is spread out over many layers.

It isn't really clear to me from your post what the scope of your paper is, but the one thing that popped into my mind is the Head Start program, which I believe began under LBJ and continues to this day. I don't know that each president since then has emphasized it, but one approach would be to see how the program has changed with each administration.

Then again, that might be completely unrelated to what you are looking to do. Good luck!

snookers
February 25th, 2005, 10:53pm
Well, no president or candidate is going to come out on the record as "anti-education." They all, regardless of party, talk about the importance of education and promise (usually in the most general of terms) to strengthen, improve, or improve access to education.
Except Reagan...I'm not sure exactly what damage he did as President to the nation's overall education system. But I do know that as CA Governor, he successfully pushed the Conservative Republican mantra that "Education should be a privilege of the few, not the right of all"...or something like that. Anybody attending a state operated California college/university can thank former Gov Reagan for outrageously high tuition fees. Until Reagan did his dirty work as Gov of California, college was virtually tuition FREE.

Aisling
February 25th, 2005, 11:26pm
Except Reagan...I'm not sure exactly what damage he did as President to the nation's overall education system. But I do know that as CA Governor, he successfully pushed the Conservative Republican mantra that "Education should be a privilege of the few, not the right of all"...or something like that. Anybody attending a state operated California college/university can thank former Gov Reagan for outrageously high tuition fees. Until Reagan did his dirty work as Gov of California, college was virtually tuition FREE.
I'll always remember Reagan as the president who wanted catsup to be considered a vegetable in the free school lunch programs. :worry:

TheLioness729
February 25th, 2005, 11:28pm
Except Reagan...I'm not sure exactly what damage he did as President to the nation's overall education system. But I do know that as CA Governor, he successfully pushed the Conservative Republican mantra that "Education should be a privilege of the few, not the right of all"...or something like that. Anybody attending a state operated California college/university can thank former Gov Reagan for outrageously high tuition fees. Until Reagan did his dirty work as Gov of California, college was virtually tuition FREE.

:mad2:

That is just wrong!

Lioness
:gvibes:

TheLioness729
February 25th, 2005, 11:30pm
I'll always remember Reagan as the president who wanted catsup to be considered a vegetable in the free school lunch programs. :worry:

Oh my GOSH!
:worry:

LastLaugh
February 26th, 2005, 6:01am
Gerald Ford was against federal funding of education -
Ford represented his district in Congress for the next 25 years. During his tenure there, he opposed federal aid to education and housing
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761558435/Gerald_Ford.html#endads
Jimmy Carter's administration created the Department of Education which tried to reduce the bureacracy.
http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/194.html
George H.W. Bush - It could be argued that education was one of his "Thousand Points of Light"

An interesting if unrelated quote from his State of the Union Message, 1991 -
We must begin with control of federal spending. That's why I'm submitting a budget that holds the growth in spending to less than the rate of inflation. And that's why, amid all the sound and fury of last year's budget debate, we put into law new, enforceable spending caps so that future spending debates will mean a battle of ideas, not a bidding war.

Though controversial, the budget agreement finally put the federal government on a pay-as-you-go basis, and cut the growth of debt by nearly $500 billion. And that frees funds for saving and job-creating investment.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0900156.html

JarnocanME
February 26th, 2005, 11:46am
No Child Left Behind penalizes 'failing school' according to rigid test. So it sends them into a downward spiral. It promotes school vouches and the privitizing of education.

JarnocanME
February 26th, 2005, 11:56am
NCLB holds public schools accountable for perfection. By the year 2014, 100 percent of students in every state must score "proficient" on state tests. People often assume...that it is merely a lofty goal towards which to strive. In fact, the 100 percent requirement is the linchpin of a rigid accountability formula that will impose dangerous sanctions on great numbers of schools.http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/080203Rose/080203rose.html please read explains it well.

TheLioness729
February 26th, 2005, 12:28pm
This is GREAT information!!! Thank you!!

MsJellyAngel
February 26th, 2005, 1:24pm
I can't be of much help, and now out of school--I am taking a mental break.

But, one of the previous posters suggested Head Start. I fully agree with that. In terms of education, it better prepares poor preschoolers for Kindergarten, and it has also shown that-that also increases chances for retention and eventual graduation. Another that you may want to consider is sex education being reintroduced. Teenage pregnancies and disease were at an all time high, and sex education was reintroduced. Within (I think approx) 5 years, the numbers began receeding. That had more of a societal impact than an education impact, but depends on the direction of your paper and how narrow your topic/topics are. You could also mention Nancy Reagan's anti-drug policy. Say No To Drugs. It was goofy, but it did help. I believe that she also established more reading in schools too. Maybe that one was Hillary Clinton? Not sure which.

Be sure to research the First Ladies too. Many of them usually put in ideas or policies too. Good luck!!!

snookers
February 26th, 2005, 6:04pm
There is a Governors' conference taking place this weekend...to discuss high schools. I thought you might be interested in this article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51785-2005Feb24.html
only 68 out of every 100 American ninth-graders will graduate from high school. Of that number, only 40 will enter college, only 27 will remain enrolled in their sophomore year and only 18 will graduate "on time" -- no more than two years late, that is -- from either a two-year or a four-year college. Achieve plans to reinforce the impact of those numbers -- which deflate the myth of the United States as a society where college degrees are routine -- by giving every governor the relevant numbers for his or her state.

JarnocanME
February 27th, 2005, 10:16am
Texas becomes the first state to officially defy, and outright refuse to follow NCLB rules on grading schools. See; http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3057839
Faced with the prospect of tagging nearly half of the state's school districts with failing grades under the federal accountability system, Texas Education Commissioner Shirley Neeley instead changed the rules to reduce the number of failing schools sixfold....
This apparently is a direct challenge to the U.S. Department of Education's enforcement of the BushInc.'s controversial No Child Left Behind Act. Gee, I guess schools in Bush's state must have been in really bad shape when he was govenor, and apparently have continued to spiral inspite of, or because of his plan. Of course that is the plan. DUH.

Aisling
February 27th, 2005, 10:59am
There is a Governors' conference taking place this weekend...to discuss high schools. I thought you might be interested in this article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51785-2005Feb24.html
Another piece from the Washington Post article. These numbers are distressing and shameful.
Gates and other speakers enumerated a list of alarming statistics to back up their argument that high schools are failing students, particularly low-income or minority children. The United States ranks 16th among 20 developed nations in the percentage of students who complete high school and 14th among the top 20 in college graduation rates.
Education Secretary Margaret Spellings is to address the meeting today - should be interesting to hear what she has to say. (Maybe all gay youth should just drop out early and provide the mainstream kids one less avenue to distract them from their studies?) :frown3:

Aisling
February 27th, 2005, 11:07am
Texas becomes the first state to officially defy, and outright refuse to follow NCLB rules on grading schools. See; http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3057839

This apparently is a direct challenge to the U.S. Department of Education's enforcement of the BushInc.'s controversial No Child Left Behind Act. Gee, I guess schools in Bush's state must have been in really bad shape when he was govenor, and apparently have continued to spiral inspite of, or because of his plan. Of course that is the plan. DUH.
It sounds to me - and I hope I'm interpreting this incorrectly - that this issue hinges on children with learning disabilities. If more than 1% of the state's children fall into special education needs, the state will fail to meet the NCLB mandate. That seems to imply that states should cut programs to learning disabled kids. :mad2:
The disagreement centers on the federal government's requirement that schools exempt no more than 1 percent of their students from testing because of learning disabilities. Once a school crosses that 1 percent special education threshold, any additional students must be counted as failing. In Texas, nearly 10 percent of all students don't take the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills because of their special education needs. Instead, they take a state-mandated alternative test.

LastLaugh
February 27th, 2005, 11:38am
What is most important in a child's education? Teaching specifically to pass tests, rote memorization of facts without regard to the whole or teaching children the joy of learning, so that learning in and of itself seems worthwhile. The NCLB is detrimental to our schools, our teachers and our children.

JarnocanME
February 27th, 2005, 11:54am
I wonder how factors like an increase of 600% in children with autism and related disorders will impact that 1% ceiling.
I also read that if students are unable to take the test in English- it counts as a 0, for the district- I don't think for the kid's personnel records. So that brings the school's scores down a great deal, trying to be fair to ESL kids. (will try to find a link for this).

I guess all students are suppose to be proficient in these test reguardless by 2013. How unrealistic, unfair and the real motivations for this-guess????

Aisling
February 27th, 2005, 12:20pm
What is most important in a child's education? Teaching specifically to pass tests, rote memorization of facts without regard to the whole or teaching children the joy of learning, so that learning in and of itself seems worthwhile. The NCLB is detrimental to our schools, our teachers and our children.
Doesn't this all factor in to the low rates of kids completing high school and graduating from college? When kids are bored with school - and teaching to pass tests is certainly mind-numbing - they opt out as soon as they can. And those from this sort of background will not be able to cope with college, assuming they do continue their education.

geistmk30
February 28th, 2005, 2:25pm
As a former school teacher and teacher's union leader, I can tell you that everyone says they are behind education but do little to support or fund it. Currently, the Bush brothers' agenda is privatization of education (as is everything in the Bush camp). I live in FL and I can speak for this when I say that public education has been held to "higher standards" through the FCAT, yet private schools are not required to take or pass the tests (including charter schools which are funded with public school money). At any rate, I was in college when Clinton was in office and his act stated things like "every child will come to school ready to learn". I believe all of these things were to happen by the year 2000, which never did. The difference between his act and NCLB is the consequences for not meeting the goals. As time goes on, teachers are being held "accountable" for students not learning. It is quite a joke. If you ever teach, you will see what you are up against. When I was in the classroom not only did I teach but I was their parent, counselor, and friend. I bought clothes, food, and supplies for my students as their parents many times did not provide any of those things. Try teaching pre-algebra to a child that did not eat the night before and was hit on his way out of his home that morning. It is very simple Maslow's Needs Pyrimad. Without basic needs being met, children are not going to be ready to learn. Teacher's are increasingly under attack, and though Bush is trying to make sure NCLB, it is teacher's that are under fire. I always go back to you can't legislate parenting but you can pick on the teachers as they are public employees. The bottom line is that lower economic schools continue to be low perfoming schools and as of yet I have not heard of any of those schools being taken over by the federal government. It will be interesting to see what happens when Bush leaves office. The bottom line is all the politicians claim to care about education, but I say see where the money goes. I don't know if I helped, but I feel better anyways.