2009.10.30
Virginia's education standards
We talked a bit this morning during the editorial board meeting about a U.S. Department of Education study that found a third of states, including Virginia, lowered education standards, which helps them meet requirements of No Child Left Behind.
We're going to look into the report some more and discuss again next week.
- The report (2+ meg pdf)
- A news story summarizing the findings
On Virginia, specifically, the researchers found that Virginia's Grade 4 and Grade 8 reading standards are well below what the federal government considers basic proficiency. In Mathematics, the commonwealth meets the Grade 4 basic proficiency but not the Grade 8. (Note: There are some margin of error issues one these, so maybe Virginia barely meets some of the basic proficiency levels.) On none of these is the commonwealth even close to what the feds consider "Proficient."
Part of the discussion is whether states should voluntarily subscribe to national standards. That conversation is underway, but details on that must be worked out.
On a sort-of-related topic, the Virginia State Board of Education is accepting comments on proposed revisions to the English and Science Standards of Learning.
Good news: Evolution and the Big Bang survive in the revisions as required learning for Virginia's young people.
If you want to comment on the revisions in person to the State Board of Education, there will be five public hearings in the next couple of months. The two for Southwest Virginia will take place in Max Meadows and Lynchburg both on Nov. 30 at 7 p.m. See here for details.
RSS feed 
again >....
"lowered education standards"
the dumbing dowm of american children...nice job
Comment by pammala — October 30, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
correction dumbing down of American children..appalled and sickened with this info. how in the world can they expect to compete against well educated people in the future
Comment by pammala — October 30, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
And just think, pammala, NCLB was foisted on us by Bush and a Republican Congress, not by Democrats.
Comment by gdad — October 30, 2009 @ 1:32 pm
doesnt matter, no need to make it any worse..I wasn't a bush fan so that doesnt make any diff to me..it is still dumbing down kids
Comment by pammala — October 30, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
"overwhelming bipartisan support"..Sponsored by Ted Kennedy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act
Comment by Henry — October 30, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
WB Henry, I have missed reading your posts.
Comment by Suzie — October 30, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
Still brought to us by George Bush. If he hadn't been pushing it so hard it never would have flown in the Republican Congress. NCLB is an expensive joke and federal interference where it doesn't belong.
Comment by gdad — October 30, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
@7 - I agree. Government schools are pathetic. But how will "federal interference" be any better when it coms to Health Care?
Comment by Walker — October 30, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
#6
Me too, Suzie (cough)
Comment by Henry — October 30, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
#7 Gdad,
You are 100% right. We should have left it alone and never have raised the learning standards and just continued to let the kids graduate from school knowing less which each successive graduating class. We should have just let what was there debilitate even more.
BH0 doesn't apparently agree with your assessment of this program....
Comment by Bob H — October 30, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
@ 10 ... if they know less, then exactly who is allowing them to graduate ???
Comment by pammala — October 30, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
@ Gdad #3
"And just think, pammala, NCLB was foisted on us by Bush and a Republican Congress, not by Democrats."
Well, hopefully NCLB will help us learn more about civics. You might not know this, but NCLB was cosponsored by Ted Kennedy, who represented the *majority* party in the Senate.
Let's also hope NCLB will help children with math. In the House, more Democrats voted for NCLB than Republicans-despite the Dems minority status. More Republicans voted *against* NCLB than Dems. Republicans voted 186-34 for the bill, while Dems managed to vote 197-10 also for the bill. The Senate was similar, with a 91-8 vote. Six of the 8 votes against came from Republicans.
Hopefully, with NCLB, the next generation of posters will better understand how a bill becomes a law and how to calculate percentages
Comment by Mike — October 30, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
I have no problem doing away with NCLB. I think it's been a farse from day one.
Secondly, I wouldn't have a problem with raising the bar for education...especially math, science and writing skills. We've created a group that can't communicate in person or via a grammatically correct letter to save their lives. I seriously doubt there are many adults these days that would know how to structure a proper business letter.
We need to stop teaching to tests and just start teaching again...and stop making the teachers disciplinarians. Discipline better begin at home.
Comment by Will — October 30, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
@7 Still brought to us by George Bush.
so that doesnt mean it is in anyway a good idea to keep it spiraling downward. stop it. lets educate our children in what they need to know to be total successes in life, the real world, fail them if it is earned. stop this ridiculous whiny liberal crap that we cant hurt anybodys feelings by not passing them in a grade..oh my God. this is why they cant make change for a dollar and dont know the capital of maine or utah or how to create a sentence. they speak like thugs, im ona ax you a qwestun...inarticulate youth really disgusts me and before you guys start whining it isnt cause they are black, because white people speak the same way...I am sick of the low intellectual levels of our kids. it is embarrassing. we demand better in my family. learn your lessons or dont pass the grade kiddo !
Comment by pammala — October 30, 2009 @ 5:10 pm
The federal government has NO ROLE in education. Read the Constitution! Then disband the Department of Education.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 30, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
Another voice from the peanut gallery.
Comment by Will — October 30, 2009 @ 5:38 pm
As the first step to better education, can we get rid of the teachers unions?
Fat chance.
Comment by Patrick — October 30, 2009 @ 5:49 pm
@15: Were you educated at any public schools or universities?
Comment by Saintbridge — October 30, 2009 @ 6:21 pm
There are no teacher unions in Virginia.
Comment by gdad — October 30, 2009 @ 11:36 pm
From the "Massive Resistance" of the 50's to the disregard of our Presidents' back to school speech, Virginia has always seemed to have a strange bone to pick with education. Until parents here learn to trust their children to learn the curriculum, and not their political prejudices, kids will always be spinning their wheels.
Another problem here is that the education debate is being led by people who have no stake in the educational system. If you have no school age children, you might be better off on the sidelines on this one.
Comment by Just Saying... — October 31, 2009 @ 7:04 am
@16--Will, you may not realize it, but snarky comments do not advance substantive positions.
The federal government does not have a role in education. The Constitution is quite clear on this point. That is a substantive position.
Referring to my comment as being from the "peanut gallery" does nothing to refute that substantive position, nor advance any contrary substantive position.
Just trying to be helpful.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 31, 2009 @ 10:30 am
@18--No. Is that somehow relevant to what the Constitution provides?
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 31, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
GFK 22 Had to come out of seclusion on this one GFK. While the Constitution remains the law of the land, you tend to ignore two major factors that increased federal powers over the states. One, was the serious error committed by the southern states of trying to walk away from the Union. In listening to some ultra conservative hotheads in 1860, these states abdictaded their ability to lead our Country and allowed the federal government to become much more powerful. Secondly, becasue the States refused to adequately fund education and refused to fulfill their responsibilities to treat all citizens equally, they again gave up authority and they chose to accept federal funds rather than raise the appropriate state funds.
The Constitution is a document that allows Congress to set laws within its bounds as you know. Those bounds have been loosely construed since the beginning of the Nation i.e. George Washington, Hamilton, Adams, John Marshall. Trying to argue that none of this is real now and that we should go back to a strict construction is absurd.
Comment by Richard — October 31, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
Richard:
Arguing that the government should abide by its Constitutional limitations is not "absurd"; rather, it is the law.
On the other hand, tolerating unconstitutional government is lawless, dangerous, and a sure road to tyranny. We are well along that path.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 31, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
GFK, we are indeed in agreement, I believe I said just that. It is the interpretation of the Constitution that leaves us far apart on many things. For instance, you insistance on having religion part of our government vs my believing it is to be kept totally separate. You say it is not excluded, I say it is not included.
Comment by Richard — October 31, 2009 @ 5:22 pm
Richard:
The Constitution requires no "interpretation". You sir, are wrong. Plain wrong.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 31, 2009 @ 6:32 pm
I am afraid that you sir have made a living doing just that as I understand your background, as does our Supreme Court and those jsutices of the past and attorneys arguing such before them. i do believe that our Congrwssmen and President have to interpret the COnstitution on a daily basis as they make their apponted decisions.
Comment by Richard — October 31, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
Richard:
You clearly do not understand what I do for a living. And you are wrong; the Constitution requires no interpretation. It was a document written in plain English for the common man to understand.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 31, 2009 @ 7:50 pm
Why is it that those who desire to "interpret" the Constitution are always those who wish to change it?
Comment by Patrick — October 31, 2009 @ 8:21 pm
GFK, I am not the one who is wrong on this point. John Marshall began the interpretation and it has continued ever since. Plain English is that which is in most need of interpretation.
Comment by Richard — October 31, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
29 Patrick, each time you bend the Constitution to try to have it say what you want, you interpret it
Comment by Richard — October 31, 2009 @ 9:06 pm
#31 - Richard, I don't bend the Constitution at all...I comply with what the courts have determined it says...unlike Chicago or DC when it comes to handguns. They clearly violate the law with their own interpretation.
Why? Because it doesn't fit their beliefs and they want to change it.
Comment by Patrick — October 31, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
Richard:
If John Marshall jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you follow him?
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 31, 2009 @ 9:53 pm
you need this constitution to protect you from people like obama
Comment by pammala — November 1, 2009 @ 3:26 am
Patrick, you won't get an argument from me on handguns, or rifles. Assault weapons, maybe. I don't believe Obama has tried to take away yor weapons. I am not for any of my rights to be taken away, however, I am in favor of controlling greed, poor foolish handling of weapons by parents, etc when they have an affect on my life or the life of others. Otherwise, I think you should be able to do what you want.
Comment by Richard — November 1, 2009 @ 8:31 am
GFK, when a Supreme Court Justice and his associates make a decision, you had better follow him. I do not believe in the anarchy you seem to profess.
Comment by Richard — November 1, 2009 @ 8:32 am
34 What has been done by the Obama Administration is certainly within the rights of the federal reserve and the Treasury and in fact has been their duties. Closing banks, supporting banks is a direct mandate of the federal reserve to protect our money supply and the economy.
Protecting the economy by bailing out GM and Chrysler had precedent from the previous bailout of Savings and Loans and Chrysler. I believe one of your Heros did that. Protecting taxpayer money by insisting on stock ownership in such companies in exchange for covering their debts was the only way to protect the taxpayers money.
Healthcare is the fault of the Healthcare Industry. They refused to reform and with their greed began to destroy our economy. They have gladly lived off medicare and government subsidy and tax benefits, but arrogantly refused to undertake reforms. Unfortunately, the government has to now step in and make the reforms for them. This is not new, Clinton and George Bush both tried to get reforms made. For over 16 years the health care industry has raped our economy. Now they complain it is not fair. Hogwash.
Comment by Richard — November 1, 2009 @ 9:12 am
Richard:
The Constitution does not permit the government to bail out private companies (and Jimmy Carter bailed out Chrysler, no hero of pammala's or mine), buy stock in private companies, provide health care to anyone, mandate the purchase of health insurance by anyone, or regulating private business generally. The Commerce Clause is simply a tool to make commerce among the several states "regular"; that is, to prevent protectionism among the states.
Obama has shredded the Constitution, and is a danger to this republic (not democracy) and to freedom and liberty, generally. He deserves impeachment and removal from office.
And there is no duty to abide by any action of the Supreme Court, the Congress, or the President, that contravenes the Constitution. We are free men, not sheep who lie at the feet of our federal masters. If the Supreme Court rules in contravention of the Constitution, it is an invalid and illegitimate ruling, carrying no legal weight.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — November 1, 2009 @ 10:17 am
GFK, Guess we have to disagree with all of the above. When your 23% of the population gains a majority again if ever, perhaps you can have more say in the matter. Or you can try to secceed as you seem to have your tthinking mired in 1860.
Comment by Richard — November 1, 2009 @ 11:19 am
Richard, you are free to disagree all you want. But you are not free to make up facts, which you have done, and you are not free to impress your unconstitutional views and actions on others, so as to gain their wealth for your own purposes, and to violate their liberties. Theft is theft is theft, be it at the point of your gun, or a government gun. It is immoral.
And while you may get away with it for a while, in the end, all thieves wind up in prison.
By the way, presumably your 23% reference has to do with self-identified Republicans. I am not a Republican. I do, however, belong to the 40% who self identify as conservative, as well as the clear majority who oppose the barack hussein obama's policies. Your time of theft and oppression may well be short lived. Enjoy it while you can.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — November 1, 2009 @ 11:46 am
I don't understand why if you don't just LOVE what obama is doing you are immediately considered a republican. I am not a member of any party as I vote for the person and what they do, not say. So it is ridiculous to automatically assume one's position...obama is a small time chicago thug and should be impeached.
Comment by pammala — November 1, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
@21...GFK
Feeling a little paranoia are we?
Under your ideology, I'm not sure what kind of country we would live under but I can say this much.
I'm damn glad we don't live under your idea of a "republic", "democracy" or whatever you decide today is convenient for your definition.
You might indeed be a lawyer...and that might answer why you keep changing positions. It is, indeed, how lawyers make their money by continually trying to interpret the law for us poor laymen.
If you look at presidents from the get go, I suspect that you could say that they have "shreaded" the Constitution...but it has been done so by the representative that the people of this country elected. While it may not be in agreement with some of the elitist positions that you hold...it was done by the representatives of the population.
You can growl, grimmace and complain til the cows come home, but Obama has done no worse than any of the previous occupants of the White House.
Comment by Will — November 1, 2009 @ 1:36 pm
Pam
Can you name one single impeachable offense that Obama as done?
You can throw the word impeach around til hell freezes over, but I haven't seen anything remotely close to impeachable.
Comment by Will — November 1, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
GFK and pammala, I classify you as ultra right wingers that hold religion (yours only) and no tax for the wealthy (perhaps no tax at all in GFK;s mind) as absolute. You represent the 23% of right wing Americans that believe that your way is the only way and that you are absolutly correct while all others are criminals (your words for Obama). God has spoken only to you and given you devine inspiration about the US Constitution and what it says. ALl US SSupreme Courts, all Presidents, all laws since 1781 are subject to your refusal or acceptance through this divine inspiration. History has no impact nor does reality factor in your thought.
I wish you the best of luck in recruiting members to your cause, but your hate mongering and slurs will not work here. We are not Germany in the 1930's, we are patriots of the USA and shall remain loyal to her cause of equality for all.
Comment by Richard — November 1, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
#40 You calling the President barack hussein is the same low road you guys are taking. Is that the best you have? It sounds like a teenager. Why not go a bit higher on the food chain and see if that might help your side. But I would have to agree with #42 you are sounding very paranoia and I hope you do not teach children and pass that stuff on to our youth.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 1, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
"You calling the President barack hussein is the same low road you guys are taking."
How about Chimpy McCokespoon instead? That's what Democrats called George W Bush. Is that better than calling a guy by his real name?
Comment by Henry — November 1, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
If there is hatred being written on this blog, it most certainly does not come from either pammala or myself.
And Will @#42, I am wholly consistent. It is a hallmark of mine. I notice you did not point out any examples of inconsistency.
@44--There have been plenty of Presidents (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Cleveland, Harrison, McKinley, Coolidge and Reagan, for example) who agree with my position. Plenty of Supreme Court justices also (Story, Harlan, Jackson, White, Rehnquist, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito, for example) agree with my positions. And members of Congress (Smith, Daniels, Byrd, Byrd, Coburn, Pence, Ryan, Bachmann, Goode, and Allen, for example) agree with my position. There is no unanimity for the unconstitutional version of events that you proffer here on this blog.
@45--I am teaching my daughter, and her many cousins, exactly the truth, which you have seen a small sample of on this blog. They will grow up to be educated, responsible, independent and [hopefully] free Americans.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — November 1, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
How about Chimpy McCokespoon instead?
Don't forget "Commander Codpiece" The irony is that nine short months ago, if you insulted the president you were a traitor.
Comment by Art Hill — November 1, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
@48: And today, if you do so, you are a "racist".
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — November 1, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
@44 We are not Germany in the 1930's
that, my dear, is exactly what we are trying to prevent!! remember, no one was paying attention until all hell broke loose and then we had to go in and save them..glad we did but the issue is, pay attention to what is really going on. you will not find it on cbs abc, nbc, cnn, msnbc, but look into the resources available on the net, I havent said to watch fox because you never would, sorry but that right there is closed minded. you dog this station before reviewing it for all they offer. Im not the nazi here...
Comment by pammala — November 1, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
dont understand why to be called a racist. i put no class on color nor do i place any generalizations on race. if called a racist, then the person calling it must not think much of him/her self, if that is the connotation that appears in their small minds.
Comment by pammala — November 1, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
#50 Well then, I guess the rest of the world press is all wrong and we should not listen to them but read the "real" news like fixed network. That my dear is small minded and maybe close minded too.
No one is calling you a Nazi but you sound very much like your are from the far right.
But any who, the reason why we all go after Fixed network is because of all there far right wing view and it does not change. I just do not see why they just call it that and get it over.
A blind man in the dark can see it.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 1, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
52 world press is all wrong
I didnt say that but obama aides have admitted that they control what gets reported.....hmmmm?
Comment by pammala — November 1, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
here is th elink
ttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6377910/White-House-aide-says-Barack-Obama-team-controlled-the-media.
Comment by pammala — November 1, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
correction to link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6377910/White-House-aide-says-Barack-Obama-team-controlled-the-media.html
Comment by pammala — November 1, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
@ Gdad #19
"There are no teacher unions in Virginia."
You may want to tell that to the VEA, who brag about being "the state's largest organization of professional teachers."
http://www.veanea.org/about/join.html
Comment by Mike — November 2, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
OMG, the VEA is a ... gasp ... organization!! Horrors!!
The VEA is not a union. You don't have to be a member, teachers cannot strike, their clout is really rather limited in Virginia. You have things turned around. An organization is NOT necessarily a union (although a union is indeed an organization). The ABA is a large organization of professional lawyers, but it's NOT a union. The Fraternal Order of Police is an organization of professional law enforcement officers, but it is NOT a union. And on and on.
Comment by gdad — November 2, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
@ Gdad #57
I am not sure if you know what a union is. The fact that teachers do not need to join means they work in a right to work state, not that the VEA is not a union. We can throw up non union organizations all day (e.g. ABA, FOP, Boy Scouts, etc.), but let's consider what the VEA does.
According to their website, VEA members receive legal representation in case of personnel disputes, they influence salary and benefits decisions for their members, they influence working conditions and budgets (see the web page for more details).
They also endorse candidates, donate to political campaigns, and collect payroll-deducted dues. They organize labor demonstrations by and for teachers (e.g. WTTR protests http://www.fairfaxea.org/WorktotheRule/tabid/229/Default.aspx).
Call it whatever you want, but the VEA acts like a union.
Comment by Mike — November 2, 2009 @ 2:07 pm