Obama Takes An EduTrip

And now President Obama is going to Wisconsin, of all places, to talk-up public education. ABC News has the story:

Tomorrow, on the anniversary of his election, President Barack Obama heads to Madison, Wisconsin to speak at a local middle school. He’ll address education policy, with a focus on the ‘Race to the Top’ initiative. That $4.35 billion dollar program, funded through the Recovery Act, is a national competition among the states, to inspire education reform.

“He’s going to talk about his education reform plan and he’s going to highlight the importance of innovation and excellence in our public education system,” said Melody Barnes, Director of the Domestic Policy Council, on a conference call with reporters, “This competition is not based on politics or ideology or interest group preferences. It’s based on whether or not a state is ready to do what actually works.”

To qualify for the money, states must meet four “assurances”:
-designing and adopting internationally benchmarks and standards
-recruiting, developing, rewarding and retaining effective teachers and principals
-build data systems that measure students’ success
-providing support for turning around low performing schools, in part by expanding the number of charter schools

When the parameters on the funding were first announced, several states were immediately identified as already out of the running because of existing state laws. Among them, California, that state’s legislature quickly acted to change its laws to qualify by allowing teacher pay to be linked to student performance. Barnes said a number of other states, including Illinois, Tennessee, Ohio, Connecticut, Rhode Island have raised their charter caps or defeated proposed cuts to charter school funding, so that they too can compete. Wisconsin’s state legislature will vote on Thursday on legislation similar to that adopted by California, which would allow students performance to impact teacher pay. If the measure does not pass, Wisconsin will not be eligible for Race to the Top dollars.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan told ABC News in July that as in any competition not everyone will win, and thus some states will not receive this funding. He said hopes the competitive spirit will drive reform.

"I think there'll be tremendous pressure on states, state legislatures where things aren't happening, by parents saying exactly that: 'Our children deserve a slice of the pie, and we want that pressure,'" Duncan said, “This isn't about winners and losers…This is about challenging the status quo as a country, getting dramatically better and giving every child in this country a chance they desperately need to have a great, great quality education."

The Department of Education will begin accepting applications in the next few weeks, and awarding the money in January. There will be two rounds of funding, so states that do not qualify or win grants in this first round will be able to apply again later in 2010.

“Ultimately, this idea is really simple,” Barnes said, “We want to support strategies that are working and replicate them all over the country. We will subject every application that we get to a rigorous review. And we will only award grants to those that demonstrate real commitment and real results. That’s the President’s ultimate goal.”

The National Education Association, (NEA) must be furious with Mr. Obama as he has said nothing about rolling back the No Child Left Behind Act.

Interestingly, the President also doesn't seem to have anything to say about the need for classroom teachers (and others who work around children) to be priority recipients for the H1N1 (swine flu) vaccination.

Note To U.S. Dept. Of Ed: Improve Thyself

Heh.

Secretary Arne Duncan of The United States Department of Education says "Colleges of Education must improve for reforms to succeed."

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan today called for America’s colleges of education to dramatically change how they prepare the next generation of teachers so that they are ready to prepare their future students for success in college and careers.

Noting that America’s schools will need to hire up to 200,000 first-time teachers annually for the next five years, Duncan said that those new teachers need the knowledge and skill to prepare students for success in the global economy.

“By almost any standard, many if not most of the nation’s 1,450 schools, colleges, and departments of education are doing a mediocre job of preparing teachers for the realities of the 21st century classroom,” Duncan said in a major speech at Teachers College, Columbia University. “America’s university-based teacher preparation programs need revolutionary change--not evolutionary tinkering.”

More than half of the nation’s teachers graduate from a school of education. The U.S. Department of Education estimates that 220,000 students graduate from a teacher college every year. In recent years, several alternative certification programs such as High Tech High, The New Teacher Project, Teach for America, and teacher residency programs have emerged. But those programs produce fewer than 10,000 new teachers annually.

“To keep America competitive, and to make the American dream of equal educational opportunity a reality, we need to recruit, reward, train, learn from, and honor a new generation of talented teachers,” Duncan said. “But the bar must be raised for successful teacher preparation programs because we ask much more of teachers today than even a decade ago.”

Colleges of education need to make dramatic changes to prepare today’s children to compete in the global economy. Teacher-preparation programs should ensure that new teachers will master the content of the subjects they’ll teach and they will have well-supported field-based experiences embedded throughout their preparation programs. Their ultimate goal should be to create a generation of teachers who are focused on improving student achievement and ready to deliver on that goal.

Duncan highlighted emerging efforts to improve teacher education that are being led by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education and the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, as well as individual colleges of education.

The Teachers College speech was Duncan’s second major address on the subject of teaching. On Oct. 9, he spoke to students at the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia, telling them that America needs to recruit an army of new teachers to ensure its long-term economic prosperity.

Earlier this week, Secretary Duncan discussed the importance of teaching with close to 100 teachers and fielded questions from additional teachers across the country in a televised town hall meeting.

Sadly, Duncan doesn't say a single word about the need to improve teacher compensation.

In our capitalist system, if one really wants to attract the highest quality people, one needs to pay them.

Isn't that what we're being told when it comes to compensating Wall Street Bankers?

As for myself, I'd be happy if my pay at least kept up with inflation. (Our district doesn't believe in giving its teachers cost-of-living adjustments. And after 7 years of the same take-home pay, inflation has pretty much destroyed my salary's buying power.)

Going Biblical In Texas

The Texas Board Of Education has now indicated that high schools in the Lone Star State may offer courses in Bible study:

AUSTIN – Broad guidelines for a Bible course for Texas high schools were approved by the State Board of Education on Friday, but board members delayed action on specific curriculum requirements until the attorney general has ruled on whether all school districts must offer the course.

Board members approved a rule establishing the elective course, which is supposed to be available in high schools by the fall of 2009, on a 13-2 vote.

Critics said the failure to approve specific content standards for the course could lead to some teachers promoting their own religious views or cause other constitutional problems that result in lawsuits against school districts.

But most board members said they wanted to wait and see how Attorney General Greg Abbott rules on the question of whether the Bible course law passed by the Legislature in 2007 requires all school districts to offer the class in high school. Some lawmakers have said the class must be available in all high schools, while others said it is a local decision.

“Until we get the attorney general’s opinion back, how can we know how to proceed,” said board member Bob Craig, R-Lubbock, echoing the views of the majority. “We might be taking action and doing something that we will have to change based on the attorney general’s ruling.”

About two dozen high schools in the state already offer an elective course on the Bible, but there currently are no state guidelines for how the class must be taught and what material should be covered.

There's no word as of yet of whether or not students can obtain extra credit for memorizing the books of the Bible in their correct order.

The Disastrous D.C. School System

Take a quick look at the problem that the public school system in our nation's capital has with finding fully licensed teachers:

Next up on Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee’s agenda to make D.C. Schools more accountable? Getting “highly qualified” teachers into the classrooms. Under the controversial law “No Child Left Behind,” all teachers must demonstrate that they are qualified to teach their subjects, usually by completing graduate coursework or passing certification tests like the Praxis series.

Last year, nearly half of all core subject classes taught in DC schools were taught by unqualified teachers. The worst-staffed subjects?

- Geography — 32.9 percent qualified
- History — 33.8 percent qualified
- Chemistry — 47.3 percent qualified

You really should read the whole thing.

With the third-highest per-pupil spending in the country, the D.C. school system spends at least $12,801 per student and still can't produce good results.

It's a national disgrace.

Gun-Ed Goes Public

And now we have politicians in one state taking a serious aim at giving kids lessons in gun play:

West Virginia is considering a bill to teach schoolchildren how to handle a gun and hunt safely; its proponent hopes the law will increase state revenues from hunting licenses, a state lawmaker said Thursday.

"We will teach a hunting safety course during their physical education class," state senator and bill sponsor Billy Wayne Bailey told AFP. The courses would be imparted in secondary schools, from the eighth to 10th grade (13-16 years of age).

"They will learn gun safety, the proper use of fire arms. All the weapons will be disabled so there is no chance of discharging," he said, adding that the state Senate was expected to take up the bill next week.

"Hunting is an economic and cultural thing and we have seen a decline of hunting licenses over the past years," said the lawmaker, explaining that his bill would boost interest in hunting in West Virginia.

Children 10 years and older can already apply for a hunting license in West Virginia, which makes 1.5 billion dollars a year from hunting-related activities, the senator said.

Since this will be aimed at kids, if this proposal is signed into law, we can't help but wonder if the state will produce video-lessons on gun safety featuring their governor Elmer Fudd.

Dixville Notch This!

Dixville Notch, New Hampshire is the little out-of-the-way hole-in-the-wall settlement that has made a cottage industry out of being the first folks to vote in that state's "God-given" first in the nation presidential primary election. This arrogant little hamlet is described thusly:(emphasis added)

Dixville Notch is an unincorporated small village in the Dixville township of Coos County, New Hampshire, USA. The town is known for being one of the first places to declare its results for the New Hampshire Presidential primary and U.S. Presidential elections.It is located in the far north of the state, approximately 20 miles (30 km) from Canada.

The village is named for the mountain pass (or "notch," in White Mountains terminology) about a hundred feet (30 m) uphill from it, that lies between Dixville Peak and Sanguinary Mountain, and separates the Connecticut River's watershed from that of the Androscoggin. Dixville Notch is also the location, in dramatic mountains about 1800 feet above sea level, of The Balsams Grand Resort Hotel; one of a handful of surviving New Hampshire grand hotels, it is situated on a 15,000 acre (61 km²) plot, accommodating golfing in the summer and skiing in the winter.

Dixville Notch is best known in connection with its longstanding middle-of-the-night vote in the U.S. presidential election, including during the New Hampshire primary (the first primary election in the U.S. presidential nomination process). Starting in the 1960 election, all the eligible voters in Dixville Notch gathered at midnight in the ballroom of The Balsams. The voters cast their ballots and the polls officially are closed one minute later. The result of the Dixville Notch vote in both the New Hampshire primary and the general election are traditionally broadcast around the country immediately afterwards.

(Ed's Note:) Here's the "official" tally for this year's primary election in Dorksville Dixville Notch:

Democrats:
Barack Obama received 7 votes. (the landslide winner)
John Edwards: 2 votes.
Bill Richardson: 1 vote.
Hillary "the Countess of Chappaqua" Rodham-Clinton: 0 votes.

Republicans:
John McCain: 4 votes.
Mitt Romney: 2 votes.
Rudy Giuliani: 1 vote.
Mike Huckabee: 0 votes.
Fred Thompson: 0 votes.

If those 17 votebots registered electors who inhabit that cold, God-forsaken, pig trail quaint little hamlet weren't the self-appointed "first voters in the nation," I think that it's safe to say that this hole-in-the-wall wouldn't even be on the map much less garner nationwide attention every four years.

But all sarcasm aside, isn't what they do in Dixville Notch also indicative of three certain small states' (Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina) inordinate amount of influence on the Presidential election process?

Within days of Iowa's caucuses and New Hampshire's primary, it has been customary for a number of candidates (most often all but one or two) to stop actively campaigning or drop-out of the race altogether.

The usual reason that candidates quit is that following the primary, campaign funds tend to dry-up for those who did not win or at least place second.

The reason why funding is not forthcoming is because the winners of Iowa's caucuses and (especially) New Hampshire/South Carolina's primaries are historically seen as having the "Big Mo" (Mo is for momentum, a term coined by George H.W. Bush.) and those who are willing to donate money to a candidate usually want to give their cash to a winner.

And money, it has been said, is the "mother's milk of politics."

If the pattern established in the past few election cycles holds true, (and even in an election cycle as interesting as this one, we see no reason why it should not) the nomination process will be finished in-all-but-name-only after South Carolina's primary is held on January 26th.(And yes, we know about Nevada's brand new Jan. 16th caucus; its influence remains to be seen.)

In all likelihood, the nominees will be known long before the primaries and caucuses that are scheduled for February's so-called Super Duper Tuesday, in which voters of at least 24 states will get to participate in what will be, in all probability, a worthless exercise that has historically served as a "coronation" for the one active candidate remaining.

Therefore, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina have an inordinate amount of influence on the presidential election process while those of us who live in states with larger populations (such as Texas, New York, and California) have little or no say in determining who gets to be the standard-bearer for either of the Republicans or the Democrats.

When pressed, the residents of these three (especially Iowans and New Hampshirites) will say that they should always be first so that they can engage in "retail politics." In other words, they want to be first because the can meet the candidates "up close and personal."

They also never fail to assure us that they "take their responsibility very seriously" and that they are in the best position to "put the candidates through their paces." What's unsaid is that they feel that it is their "right" to eliminate less-desirable candidates from consideration so that the rest of us (who live in the other 47 states) won't make the mistake of choosing the "wrong" candidate.

I find the smugness of Iowans and New Hampshirites to be particularly galling.

The argument put forward by those who say that the position of the priviliged three must be preserved doesn't stand up to scrutiny as there are other states with small populations that could just as easily serve as fertile grounds for "retail politics."

How about a "first in the nation" primary in one of the other smaller-population states such as.... Montana, Mississippi, or even Delaware?

Just imagine the fun and pure excitement (not to mention entertainment value) of having a "first in the nation" primary in one of the "interesting" smaller-population states such as New Mexico, West Virginia, or (for real kicks) Louisiana?

If instead of spending two or more years pampering the already-spoiled populaces of Iowa and New Hampshire, (Who've come to not only expect but to demand this pampering by presidential aspirants, even to the point of extracting promises from the candidates to uphold the process if elected.) the candidates had to plan for caucuses/primaries held in any of the states listed above, they would have to prepare themselves to meet a whole new (and different) group of people which are concerned with some very different issues than those issues that concern folks in relatively rural (and relatively affluent) Iowa and New Hampshire.

But that's not going to happen as officials of the "perpetual three who decide" don't hesitate to get together and orchestrate their efforts to maintain their monopoly.

Of course, the inhabitants of these three otherwise insignificant states Iowa, (total population: 2.9 million) New Hampshire, (1.3 million) and South Carolina (4.3 million) couldn't do to us what they do without help. These relative few have the connivance of the leadership of both the Democrat and Republican parties, who punish any state that has the audacity to challenge the "presidential selection monopoly" that has been (and is) enjoyed by the residents of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

What will be done to democratize the process?

In all probability, nothing.

I'd be willing to bet that in four years, the states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina will still insist on picking our presidents for the rest of us while the two major parties, (who actually control the process) will do nothing to alter this demonstrably anti-democratic travesty.

We can only hope that the less than 9 million folks who live in these three little states pick two good nominees for the 291 million of us who don't get the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the nomination process.

George F. Will Gets Beyond NCLB

From tomorrow's Washington Post George Will writes:

No Child Left Behind, supposedly an antidote to the "soft bigotry of low expectations," has instead spawned lowered standards. The law will eventually be reauthorized because doubling down on losing bets is what Washington does. But because NCLB contains incentives for perverse behavior, reauthorization should include legislation empowering states to ignore it.

NCLB was passed in 2001 as an extension of the original mistake, President Lyndon Johnson's Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which became law in the year of liberals living exuberantly -- 1965, when Great Society excesses sowed the seeds of conservatism's subsequent ascendancy. ESEA was the first large Washington intrusion into education K through 12.

NCLB was supported by Republicans reluctant to vastly expand that intrusion but even more reluctant to oppose a new president's signature issue. This expansion of Washington's role in the quintessential state and local responsibility was problematic for three reasons.

First, most new ideas are dubious, so the federalization of policy increases the probability of continentwide mistakes. Second, education is susceptible to pedagogic fads and social engineering fantasies -- schools of education incubate them -- so it is prone to producing continental regrets. Third, America always is more likely to have a few wise state governments than a wise federal government.

With mandated data collections -- particularly tests of "adequate yearly progress" in reading and math -- NCLB was supposed to generate information that would enable schools to be held accountable for cognitive outputs commensurate with federal financial inputs. Bad data would make schools blush and reform.

Fourteen months ago, the president said, "The gap is closing. . . . How do we know? Because we're measuring." But about those measurements . . .

NCLB requires states to identify, by criteria they devise, "persistently dangerous schools." But what state wants that embarrassment? The Post recently reported that last year, of America's approximately 94,000 public schools, the "persistently dangerous" numbered 46. There were none among the 9,000 schools in amazingly tranquil California.

NCLB's crucial provisions concern testing to measure yearly progress toward the goal of "universal proficiency" in math and reading by 2014. This goal is America's version of Soviet grain quotas, solemnly avowed but not seriously constraining. Most states retain the low standards they had before; some have defined proficiency down.

So says "The Proficiency Illusion," a report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, which studies education reform. Its findings include:

The rationale for standards-based reform was that expectations would become more rigorous and uniform, but states' proficiency tests vary "wildly" in difficulty, "with 'passing scores' ranging from the 6th percentile to the 77th." Indeed, "half of the reported improvement in reading, and 70 percent of the reported improvement in mathematics, appear idiosyncratic to the state test." In some states, tests have become more demanding; but in twice as many states, the tests in at least two grades have become easier. NCLB encourages schools to concentrate their efforts on the relatively small number of students near the state test's proficiency minimum -- the students who can most help the state meet its "adequate yearly progress" requirements.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra, a Republican who represents western Michigan's culturally cohesive Dutch Calvinist communities, opposed NCLB from the start because he thought it would "tear apart the bond between the schools and the local communities." He believes the reauthorized version of NCLB will "gut" accountability. He is gloomily sanguine about that because he thinks accountability belongs at the local level anyway and because removing meaningful accountability removes NCLB's raison d'etre. He proposes giving states the option of submitting to Washington a "Declaration of Intent" to reclaim full responsibility for K-12 education. Such states would receive their portion of K-12 funds as block grants.

But Rep. Scott Garrett, a New Jersey Republican, warns that Washington, with its unsleeping hunger for control, steadily attaches multiple strings to block grants. He proposes to allow states to opt out from under NCLB's mandates and regulations and to give residents of those states tax credits equal to the portion of their taxes their state would have received back in federal funds for K-12 education. Garrett thinks that this could be a template for states to escape many entanglements with Washington.

NCLB intensified what Paul Posner of George Mason University calls "coercive federalism." Kenneth Wong and Gail Sunderman of Brown University and the Harvard Civil Rights Project, respectively, say NCLB "signaled the end of 'layer cake' federalism and strengthened the notion of 'marble cake' federalism, where the national and subnational governments share responsibilities in the domestic arena." Hoekstra's and Garrett's proposals would enable states to push Washington toward where it once was and where it belongs regarding K through 12 education: Out.

Ever since I was a young TeenWonk, I've observed that no matter which political party was in charge in Washington, the federal government just got bigger.

And that was true even when Ronald Reagan occupied the White House in spite of the fact that he publicly expressed his desire to abolish the Department of Education.

If past behavior is the best indicator of future performance, I think that I know what the future holds for the vast Washington EduCracy that has sprung up ever since Jimmy Carter created this Administrative Empire Department back in 1980.

It's just going to get bigger still while becoming ever more intrusive and dictatorial. All the while the Department will continue loudly screeching about the need to hold others (especially those who actually work with children) "accountable" for what goes on in the classroom. Meanwhile they will continue exempting themselves from any accountability whatsoever when it comes their own regrettable lack of substance or success.

The Spellings Report: Pushing NCLB

The nation's report card has just come out and Queen of All Testing U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings is positively giddy over the news:

"Student achievement is on the rise," said Secretary Spellings. "No Child Left Behind is working. It's doable, reasonable and necessary. Any efforts to weaken accountability would fly in the face of rising achievement."

Spellings noted that 48 states and the District of Columbia either improved academically or held steady in all categories.

"To those who would suggest that No Child Left Behind is not working, our nation's 4th- and 8th-graders and their teachers just proved the naysayers wrong," Spellings added. "Math scores for 4th- and 8th-graders and the reading scores for 4th-graders are at historic highs and the biggest gains were made by African American and Hispanic students."

More than 700,000 students nationwide participated in the 2007 Nation's Report Card on reading and math, and they represented a diverse student population, including one-third minority students and a growing proportion of English language learners.

"At a time when our student population is becoming more diverse, educators and students are rising to the challenge and excelling in the classroom," Spellings said. "I'm pleased with the progress but not satisfied. As we inch closer to our goal of having every child on grade level in reading and math by 2014, we need to continue to pick up the pace. I am confident that our nation's schools and teachers can get the job done."

Spellings emphasized that today's results prove once again that moving away from accountability would send us in the wrong direction.

"What President Bush has proposed in his reauthorization plan for No Child Left Behind is the right direction," said Spellings. "It provides parents more information and options to make the right educational decisions for their children; it gives states and schools more effective ways to target resources and interventions where they're needed most; and it gives educators more incentives to teach in our most challenging educational environments.

"Bottom line: No Child Left Behind is empowering parents and students by infusing accountability into education—and the Nation's Report Card shows that it is working on behalf of our nation's children," said Spellings.

Naturally enough, these results will provide useful ammunition for those who are battling for the reauthorization of NCLB.

Did you notice that last paragraph? As with most of her utterances, the Secretary expounds the need for public educators to be held accountable for the success of the public education system.Far from it.

As professionals, we do need to be "held accountable" for our classroom performance and its effectiveness.

What we've always had a problem with is that when Spellings and her ilk mention accountability, it's nearly always the classroom teachers and site administrators who are held wholly accountable for students' academic progress; she rarely, if ever, mentions the need for parents and students to also be responsible for at least making an effort to achieve success.

Is EduTechnology Oversold?

The New York Times is reporting that some schools are now dropping their laptop-for-students programs:

LIVERPOOL, N.Y. — The students at Liverpool High have used their school-issued laptops to exchange answers on tests, download pornography and hack into local businesses. When the school tightened its network security, a 10th grader not only found a way around it but also posted step-by-step instructions on the Web for others to follow (which they did).

Scores of the leased laptops break down each month, and every other morning, when the entire school has study hall, the network inevitably freezes because of the sheer number of students roaming the Internet instead of getting help from teachers.

So the Liverpool Central School District, just outside Syracuse, has decided to phase out laptops starting this fall, joining a handful of other schools around the country that adopted one-to-one computing programs and are now abandoning them as educationally empty — and worse.

Many of these districts had sought to prepare their students for a technology-driven world and close the so-called digital divide between students who had computers at home and those who did not.

“After seven years, there was literally no evidence it had any impact on student achievement — none,” said Mark Lawson, the school board president here in Liverpool, one of the first districts in New York State to experiment with putting technology directly into students’ hands. “The teachers were telling us when there’s a one-to-one relationship between the student and the laptop, the box gets in the way. It’s a distraction to the educational process.”

Liverpool’s turnabout comes as more and more school districts nationwide continue to bring laptops into the classroom. Federal education officials do not keep track of how many schools have such programs, but two educational consultants, Hayes Connection and the Greaves Group, conducted a study of the nation’s 2,500 largest school districts last year and found that a quarter of the 1,000 respondents already had one-to-one computing, and fully half expected to by 2011.

Yet school officials here and in several other places said laptops had been abused by students, did not fit into lesson plans, and showed little, if any, measurable effect on grades and test scores at a time of increased pressure to meet state standards. Districts have dropped laptop programs after resistance from teachers, logistical and technical problems, and escalating maintenance costs.

Such disappointments are the latest example of how technology is often embraced by philanthropists and political leaders as a quick fix, only to leave teachers flummoxed about how best to integrate the new gadgets into curriculums. Last month, the United States Department of Education released a study showing no difference in academic achievement between students who used educational software programs for math and reading and those who did not.

The Times has much more.

In our school district here in California's "Imperial" Valley, teachers initially embraced the use of technology. There was much excitement about these new teaching tools.

Unfortunately, within the past couple of years, school administrators have imposed new restrictions on teachers' computer usage to the point where no teacher (regardless of technological proficiency) in the district may adjust the settings of their machines in any way. (In other words, teachers are not allowed to change the brightness of the monitor, modify the screen saver, or even defrag their disks.)

Anytime a teacher needs to make any change, adjustments, or routine maintenance whatsoever, then he or she must submit a written request to the technology department.

All school administrators, on the other hand, are given full access privileges, regardless of their technological expertise, (Or notorious lack thereof.) to their school-issued desktop machines and laptops.

Needless to say, the district's patronizing attitude toward its teachers has caused much frustration among those of us who do know our way around a CPU...

Nowadays, many classroom teachers now choose to limit their on-the-job computer usage to the district-mandated daily retrieval of email.-----------------------------------See our latest entries.

Head Start Gets Started

The Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives has approved an expansion of the Head Start program while igniting a controversy over whether or not service providers may be hired/fired on religious grounds:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House approved more money for the popular Head Start program Wednesday after rejecting a GOP-led attempt to allow religious groups participating in the program to hire and fire staffers based on religious grounds.

The bill, passed 365-48, approves $7.4 billion in spending in fiscal 2008 for the 42-year-old program that helps low-income children prepare for school, up from $6.9 billion in the current year.

It increases enrollment, now about 900,000 children aged 3 to 5, boosts teacher and staff salaries and expands services for homeless, migrant and non-English-speaking children.

"Head Start has served our most vulnerable children and families well for 42 years, and more recently, Early Head Start has done the same for infants and toddlers," said Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Michigan, a chief sponsor. "Head Start works, and this bill will make it work even better."

Before the final vote, Democrats voted down the Republican proposal to change a 1972 Head Start law in order to allow religious groups to take religion into account in hiring. Democrats said that amounted to sanctioning religious discrimination among groups receiving federal money.

Instead, Democrats pushed through an amendment, offered by Rep. Heath Shuler, D-North Carolina, and several other moderate Democratic freshmen, that confirms the rights of religious groups to participate in Head Start programs on the same basis of other organizations.

If the Senate, now considering a similar bill, and the House come to agreement, it would be the first congressional action on the education, nutrition and health program since the last reauthorization bill expired in 2003. Since then, Congress has voted on money for the program but has been unable to make substantive changes in it.

The White House said it cannot support the bill because of the religion issue and several other provisions, including one to terminate a system of measuring the progress of Head Start children.

Get more over there.

For the record, we like Head Start.

Having said that, we also think that there should be some way to objectively measure the effectiveness of the program.

But how can that be done without giving pre-kindergarten age kids some sort of standardized tests? ----------------------------See our latest entries.