08.30.04
Posted in education at 9:31 pm by
Almsot exactly four years ago Republican Candidate George W. Bush touted himself as the education candidate. Bush was the candidate who would forever change education. Reform education he did, very badly. Unprecedented national control of public education is the main product of the No Child Left Behind act. (More on NCLB soon!)
The president prides himself in education. Imagine my surprise then, when I read in the magazine of the National Education Association, the NEA Today, that when choosing a candidate to support the NEA wasn’t able to choose President Bush. Now before y’all start screaming about the liberal NEA bastards, you should recognize that the NEA wasn’t able to select President Bush as an endorsed candidate because he didn’t even take the few moments necessary to fill out a survey sent to him by the NEA.
Are these the signs of a man who cares deeply about education? I think the truth is that W forgot about education. It’s impossible to tell what funding for education would’ve looked like had we not gotten mired in a war. Of course, it is his job to be able to do both–handle domestic AND international affairs. It doesn’t seem logical to me to completely ignore domestic affairs like education for the sake of safety–if even we are safer.
America isn’t unifocused as 43 would love to think. Yes, of course, I want to be safe. Safety, though, at the expense of education isn’t really safety at all. Our president would do well to remember that terrorism isn’t the only threat to our safety. I would argue that a rapidly growing void between classes is a much larger threat to the overall safety and wellbeing of this country.
For more from the NEA check out their website at nea.org
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2004/08/30/the_education_president_1/trackback/
Posted in education at 9:31 pm by
Almsot exactly four years ago Republican Candidate George W. Bush touted himself as the education candidate. Bush was the candidate who would forever change education. Reform education he did, very badly. Unprecedented national control of public education is the main product of the No Child Left Behind act. (More on NCLB soon!)
The president prides himself in education. Imagine my surprise then, when I read in the magazine of the National Education Association, the NEA Today, that when choosing a candidate to support the NEA wasn’t able to choose President Bush. Now before y’all start screaming about the liberal NEA bastards, you should recognize that the NEA wasn’t able to select President Bush as an endorsed candidate because he didn’t even take the few moments necessary to fill out a survey sent to him by the NEA.
Are these the signs of a man who cares deeply about education? I think the truth is that W forgot about education. It’s impossible to tell what funding for education would’ve looked like had we not gotten mired in a war. Of course, it is his job to be able to do both–handle domestic AND international affairs. It doesn’t seem logical to me to completely ignore domestic affairs like education for the sake of safety–if even we are safer.
America isn’t unifocused as 43 would love to think. Yes, of course, I want to be safe. Safety, though, at the expense of education isn’t really safety at all. Our president would do well to remember that terrorism isn’t the only threat to our safety. I would argue that a rapidly growing void between classes is a much larger threat to the overall safety and wellbeing of this country.
For more from the NEA check out their website at nea.org
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2004/08/30/the_education_president_1/trackback/
John said,
September 8, 2004 at 9:39 pm
Brandon, why do you assume that Dubya’s rejection of the NEA means a rejection of education? That’s like telling me because I support welfare reform and the abolition of school zoning, that I don’t care about the poor-Whereas in fact, the direct opposite is true. Likewise, maybe Dubya didn’t fill out the survey because he believes the NEA is part of the problem with education, not the solution to it. You might disagree with him, but cut him some slack, hey?
Brandon said,
September 8, 2004 at 10:00 pm
Filling out that survey would’ve quite simply shown Bush’s desire to at least participate in the process of education. If Bush truly believes that the NEA (or teachers) are the problem with education, he’s even dumber than I thought…and I think he’s pretty fucking stupid.
John said,
September 9, 2004 at 4:27 am
I said a part of the problem. They are, from what I understand, blocking school vouchers, which are a part of the solution, in my opinion and Dubya’s. Disagree with that all you want, friend, but just because Dubya won’t pander to the special interest group who is defending a morally bankrupt status quo, don’t accuse him of not caring about education. I think he does. But his ideas and solutions are different from the NEA’s. It’s a little like Rick Santorum failing to fill out the NARAL questionnaire-Does that mean he doesn’t care about Abortion? Of course not. Does that mean he’s a stupid bigot who doesn’t care about women? No, unless you’re Michael Moore. It’s just that he has a different take on the issue. I think the leadership of the Teacher’s Union, both here and in the US, is part of the problem with education-They are captive to the Left Wing, don’t represent teachers, and want to deliver ideology instead of education that works. Just my opinion, but you can’t tell me because I won’t kow-tow to the Teacher’s Union that I don’t care about education. It’s one of my foremost concerns as a teacher myself. I think the NEA’s moral status can be judged by the fact that they participated in the Pro-Choice March-Apparently it isn’t education that the NEA stands for, it’s Abortion, and every other liberal cause going.
Brandon said,
September 9, 2004 at 8:44 am
Calling the NEA “morally bankrupt” is patently offensive, John. There are plenty of NEA supporters and members who are not. My wife and I are among them. I assure you you’ve never been as wrong about anything in your life.
I never said he doesn’t care. He’s just lost complete focus on the issue after 9/11.
John, I can’t help but think that from your description of the teacher’s union in the US you really have NO CLUE what it’s really like here for a NEA member. Captive to the left wing??? Plenty of NEA members vote republican, and some vote democrat too! The only thing they’re really “captive” to is the law–in Bush’s case, the NCLB act. And, yes, part of that program is vouchers–which I’m against.
The Teacher’s Union IS TEACHERS!!! So, please don’t write off that which you don’t really understand.
John said,
September 9, 2004 at 5:42 pm
If you actually read what I said, Brandon, I called the leadership of the NEA part of the problem. I never said teachers were a problem, or that they were morally bankrupt. Many, perhaps most, do a great job. I said their organisation is captive to liberal ideology, and isn’t representative. The same is true of many organisations, even some I support. What I called morally bankrupt is a status quo that traps poor families in failing schools. I teach them, not only in Sunday School, but also in literacy and maths-I’ve seen the consequences of that status quo, which is the same as the US, (In fact, our school zoning law is passed by Progressives who take lessons from “The overseas experience” including the NEA) and they aren’t pretty. I think school vouchers could work-We may disagree on that, but you can’t tell me that I’m either ignorant or uncaring, and I don’t think Dubya is either. He’s trying to think outside the box, something that at least deserves a trial.
Peace
John
Brandon said,
September 9, 2004 at 5:51 pm
I think I understand your point better now, John. I apologize for going off on you so about the moral bankrupcy thing.
“What I called morally bankrupt is a status quo that traps poor families in failing schools.”
Here is our key disagreement as I see it. Your quote above, I don’t know about how vouchers are structured in New Zealand but here vouchers don’t solve that problem. They may allow SOME students passage out of failing schools but the VAST MAJORITY wouldn’t be able to be served by moving into a better school district–the money just isn’t there.
We need to improve the whole of the public school system. To do that we need money…money that we haven’t been given enough of–largely because it’s being spent elsewhere (read: the defense budget). This was the main point of my post, that Bush has been distracted from those things that won him the presidency 4 years ago.