We share evidence-based K-12 learning strategies that empower you to improve education.
Of all the candidates Clinton has the most to say about education. She claims Bush has ruined NCLB. Beyond that she does not offer enough information to give me confidence that she has a plan for overhauling the system. We are beyond the band aide stage.
We could use the funds saved by ending the war in Iraq to buy laptops for every student in the United States. That could be interesting. Maybe the candidates have some more ideas of their own that have not been revealed to us. I hope so.
When I saw the question, "As president, which candidate would best serve public education?"... my immediate reaction was to ask for clarification of the question. The phrase "best serve" is as vague as any poorly written test item that ever was created.
Does that mean who would provide the most money? What about all the strings that are always attached to federal funding? What about all the time that schools must spend keeping track of the mandates related to funding? (Not to mention employee salaries paid just to monitor and/or facilitate the required processes.) Is that serving public education? Public schools can't afford to get rid of all the ineffective, under-motivated teachers who give the rest of us a bad name. Why? There aren't enough "better" bodies to replace them. What young professional in their right mind would choose a career so bound by red tape and so clearly limited in long term rewards? I am a discouraged 30-year public school teacher saving to help send my grandkids to private schools. Public education is broken and I want NO politician involved in the process of fixing it.
Hillary Clinton has a life time record of working for children, schools and teachers. She will bring about realistic reform in education. She will appoint inspired professionals to manage her education programs. We need a 24/7 365 day a year modern digital based education program.
Education is, constitutionally, a function of the state and local government, not the federal. Therefore, any involvement by the federal government, however well intentioned or designed, does not serve public education, as federal funds come with strings attached, which effectively removes local control of schools.
So they can be brainwashed and ignorant, just like their parents? "Private" education is used as a code word for denying science in favor of personal belief. That's not "education" ... that's a cult.
I nominate Obama: sensitive, thoughtful perceptive, tuned in to the future and an advocate of change, especially in eliminating the corruption and madness in DC.
Hillary? Just read Richard Brooks' op-ed in the New york Times, 2-5-08, entitled "Hillary Clinton's Dark Side." An evil person to the core. Now, do you really want this brand of personality disorder let loose in the education realm?
Not me! Our children need protection!
As long as traditional public education remains in the grip of the NEA and state teacher unions meaningful education for our school-aged children is in peril. Electing a dem will ensure continued erosion of public education. Step out of your union bondage and think for yourselves. NCLB should be tweaked but not disposed of.
Huh? It's G. Bush's 'No Child Left Behind' that has us "teaching to the test!"
Teachers should not get away with teaching to the test. The NEA is interested in job security, not better education for the children. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will make the public system worse. School choice and parental involvement in their children's education is the best place to start when it comes to improving education of our children, not governmental nannyhood. Teaching to the test does not improve the quality of education, in fact it discourages actual learning. The candidate who promotes school choice, private education, and leaving these important decisions to the parents will be the best candidate for education.
I honestly believe that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would be excellent supporters of public education. However, I voted for Barack Obama because in addition to the intelligence, organizational skills and problem solving capabilities which he shares with Mrs Clinton, he also brings fresh inspiration to the table and a better expressed leadership message that more people of diverse political backgrounds will hear. Our nation's children desperately need reasoned and passionate guidance now, if the United States is to successfully prepare them for the universal world of the 21st Century. I believe that Barach Obama has the best package of attributes to not only "get the job done" but also to create a new attitude of trust and cooperation that places children first in all policy and budget strategic planning. Such thinking is much more than whether or not we "leave a child behind." It more directly is how we as adults will "let a child lead us" into a world we will never know but in which they must live.