Mon Musings

This AM newspaper headlines read, "Graduation rate dip tied to remedial ed programs."  Well, no kidding.  Why would that be at all surprising, enough to grab readers' attention?  According to the article, school districts lure drop-outs and at-risk students to "alternative education programs," get extra state money for these students, and then use the money for programs other than "alternative education programs."  Again, who could be surprised at this?  I suppose it could be those who pay no attention to what goes on in the name of education or those who buy--lock, stock, and barrel--whatever tripe comes out of the school information ofices.  For how many years has this been going on--forever?  Who has ever really examined and then challenged the rigor--or, rather, the lack of it--of such programs?  Nobody has, because the programs were money makers, any educational progress or not didn't matter.  Now, though, it seems, these programs are being held accountable in the form of test scores, which are averaged into district scores.  Hmmm....  And they drag down the averages.

OK, so it's Tue now.  But I wonder if there will be a protest over MSU giving its AD a 50% pay raise.  His salary went from $395,000 to $600,000 (I used my calculator!).  That doesn't include a $100,000 longevity payment.  Oh, and there's a $50,000 annual bonus tied in there, too.  Now, the guy might actually deserve all that money, although I'm not sold on it.  Still, with the colleges (you know, students who are part of the "99%") in the financial situation they are, this should rankle quite a few folks.  But, no doubt, it won't.  After all, it's only certain people who work in certain fields who are "greedy."

In a conversation last weekend, I acknowledged that I rip on Democrats a lot, namely because they deserve it for their bad policies, hypocrisy, and what not.  But, I also admitted, I'm certainly not a Republican, not at all.  In class, for example, I point out that I think both Nixon and Clinton should have been booted.  I don't like crooks, scumbags, etc. from either party--and there are lots of them.

I see Mitt Romney's plan for improving education is remarkable similar to Barack Obama's; they are both seriously flawed and won't attain any improvement.  What is so hard to figure out about improving schools??????  Why would either think privatizing schools (they call it by various names, "charters" being one of them) would make them better?  Why would either think the private sector could do a better job of educating?  (I must admit, though, that those who've been running the schools over the past three or four decades have done a pretty lousy job of it.)  Is it that everyone has gone to school, so everyone can be teachers and administrators (which probably isn't far from what many think)?  That's sort of like saying everyone played baseball or football as a kid, so everyone is qualified to be a MLB manager or NFL coach.  That all seems pretty stupid to me, but, then again, what do I know?  The solution isn't that hard.  W Bush went to Yale; Obama went to Columbia and Harvard (allegedly!).  Now, those schools are pretty close to Amherst, just "pretty close!"  I had outstanding professors for the most part, not all, but mostly.  And, as I aged they became even better when I realized what they were trying to and actually did teach.  Brilliant for the most part.  So, didn't W and BO have similarly brilliant professors?  If so, then why did/do W and BO turn to those with all those fake degrees in education for the Dept of Edu, as their "experts" in education?  To me, that's like turning to some kid who plays video football games to coach the next NFL team.  What aren't the best teachers ever asked how to improve things--or, if they are, why are they always ignored?  Of course, who determines the "best" teachers?  In a discussion with a variety of folks in a variety of professions last weekend, it was determined that administrators who don't have the slightest idea of the rigor required for quality education (OK, so I tendered that opinion, but all agreed) determine who the "best" teachers are--and administrators are frequently wrong, very wrong.  You see, they don't know, so how can they judge?  How can I judge a dog show or even Dancing with the Stars when I know nothing about dogs or dancing (except after a few La Batts and some good Motown music!)?

Speaking of education, namely current trends, what is this push toward "virtual education" and "online classes?"  This was also a topic this weekend.  I pointed out the many weaknesses of "virtual" education/classes, using examples I have seen with my own eyes.  As an exclamation point, although he didn't intend it that way, a guy who's taken online classes admitted, "I'd be stupid if I didn't cheat!"  Yep, one of my points exactly.  But who can speak out against them without coming across as some reactionary Luddite or Neanderthal?  Remember, in education (and the business community that knows nothing about education, but is increasingly make decisions about it), "technology" is God.  The inmates are running the asylum.
I didn't follow the trial at all, but I'd like to hear the comments of the jurors in l'affaire Clemens.  Did,  he not blatantly lie to Congress, under oath?  (Of course, the irony of somebody being accused of lying to Congress, that same Congress filled with people who have taken lying, er, misspeaking, to a higher art, is delicious!)  How, then, "not guilty on all counts?"  Was the prosecution's case that weak?  Was it that the prosecution was inept?  And, yet, who was that UCLA (?) recruit who was accused of rape, took a plea and served 6 years in jail (instead of a possible 45 years in the slammer?)  Then, the accuser admitted she was "just kidding," but will keep the million dollar payout she received as a settlement from the school district.  There's something rotten in Denmark.

And, as a rationale for a lousy program, an Obama administration official was said to have acted on information that was inaccurate.  And everybody seems to be accepting that.  Hey, isn't that what W. Bush did?  But then why is it, still, "Bush lied?"  (And he didn't, not if poison gas is a "weapon of mass destruction!")

And EJ Dionne has kept up his track record.  (I'm not picking on him because he's a liberal, either.  Cal Thomas is equally bad as a conservative.)  If you can find his column from this weekend, read it.  How can anyone be taken seriously by comparing, favorably, Obama with Truman?  They are light years apart--in everything, starting with honesty.