So true. I went to college with 3 of my best friends, 2 of them being national merit scholars (for having a high score on the SAT-not sure if merit scholars still exist these days?), one of those having a full scholarship to A&M. I won't mention what I got on the SAT here as it was embarrassingly low:(, but I can say I was in the top 5% of my highschool and had only made 1 B over those 4 years. Anyways, by our sophomore year, both merit scholars were on academic probation, my friends full ride was gone. Meanwhile, I continued to do very well and was accepted to vet school a year early.

I did not do well on standardized testing but this did not impact my performance in college. It did hold me back from receiving several scholarships and from being in the honors program.

My friends could take a 4 hour test and do well, but when it came to studying, attending class and even classroom testing-they did not do well. I am still a bit bitter:mad: over the SAT (also substitute the GRE for the SAT I had to take for vet school-again I did awful but my grades saved me)

You're setting up a false dichotomy: Either (A) we keep the current set-up, or (B) We keep all control local. (Although earlier you wanted the control to be at the state level. Where should it be -- state or local?)

Maintaining some federal involvement doesn't have to mean keeping things just like they are. But we live in a global economy, and our national economy is very interconnected. If some states fail to provide adequate schools, the country suffers, not just the people in that state or district. If you want to look at it through a state lens, the states all have an interest not only in making sure their own schools are good but in holding other states accountable. Otherwise, we all suffer.

There is a role for the federal involvement in education, particularly the role that AXOmom identifies: national standards and expectations.

I agree- I was going to apply for TFA but I was completely unimpressed with their "training" program. Instead I'm applying to grad school- one that places student teachers in urban classrooms with a mentor teacher from day one, to maximize your hands on experience.

I have not worked with any TFA teachers personally, so I cannot comment upon their effectiveness. However, in the present economy, with so many fully credentialed, well-qualified teachers unemployed, why would any district hire from the TFA corps? In California alone, there are thousands of laid-off teachers.

*I have taught for eleven years, and I have mentored several excellent student teachers over the past two years. These teachers were trained at either CSUN or CSU Bakersfield. Only one of them has been hired to teach full time, and she was hired by a private school.

B: Local (county/city) school boards with State oversight

Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results - Albert Einstein

Again, though, a false dichotomy: Doing just what we're doing now or purely local contriol with State oversight are far from the only options. Einstein would know that. ;)

Also (and one reason I'm not in love with that quote), it's clear Einstein was a theoretical physicist - experimental physicists know that repeatability is one of the main difficulties in high-level scientific research today. You'll often do the same thing over and over and get different results.

Similarly, often government programs aren't inherently or implicitly broken - the implementation is poor, not the conceit. A do-over (more likely, a clean start-over) could indeed give tremendous results.

How many do-overs does the Federal Government get? The DOE has been, realistically, in existence since 1980. Are our schools better or worse than prior to that year? That is 31 years of wasted $$$$ going down a bottomless well with no real return on investment. Every year should have been a do-over.:confused:

How many do-overs/restructurings of DOE have there been? (That's a different question from how many one thinks there should have been.)

Sorry, but I think "solutions" like "get rid of DOE and return the power to local communities," while they might sound great and appealing, are terribly simplistic approaches to a complicated problem. It's not a real solution -- it's just trading one set of problems for another set of problems.

Without arguing over efficacy or semantics like the above, let's try it this way:

What, exactly, makes you think anybody at all on a local level of government is qualified to dictate educational policy? And I don't even mean "more qualified" than somebody else - I seriously mean, for the average community, what about the dopey, slow, limited, and largely ceremonial governments of most towns and suburbs makes you think THAT is the group who really needs more money and power pushed toward them?

And if you instead want to discuss the state level ... States puked all over themselves trying to spend stimulus funds, then cried when they didn't get more. Many state governments are run by part-time state legislators whose qualifications were "Put Up A Lot Of Signs In Yards." That's your solution? Give them more stuff to do, more money to blow?

Sorry if I'm non-plussed at the concept of removing the DoE in favor of essentially this plan:

1. Move money from idiotic bureaucracy to smaller, less experienced idiotic bureaucracy.

2. ????

3. Profit.

Contracts.

My old district in AZ had like a 5 year contract with TFA and were only like 2 years into their new contract when the economy tanked and teachers had to be laid off. They would pay more to cancel the contract with TFA then to just continue with the contract.

Um...that would make it 31...not 41.

Don't do this. Don't make me 40 before my time.

Thanks,

A 1979 Baby

:o

No, let's instead continue like we are with a truly bloated inept bureaucracy (DOE) that thinks it knows best for everyone and every state.

The states administer and oversee the public University systems? I don't believe the Federal Govt. is involved and they (States) do, by all accounts, a good job. At least in NC we have a very good system with some pretty good leaders. I don't see why it would be an automatic fail if the states took over total control of the schools from Washington. I don't see local and state control as idiotic. They seem to do a very good job around here and they have a stake in the outcomes unlike the "idiots" (your term) at the DOE.

Sorry but Einstein was right.

Perhaps you need to meet some of the local school board folks in my neck of the woods.

To be honest, I get the feeling that you think the Department of Education has a lot more power and authority than it actually has. With the exception of No Child Left Behind (only 10 years old, not 31), the bulk of decision-making authority is already with the states and local school boards. And of course, it's essentially NCLB that Matt Damon was criticizing and that many of us have been criticizing.