Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (15261)	3/27/2006 7:41:46 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542089

Yes, but that's not a counter argument to the NYTimes piece. No, it's not. I had no intention of countering the NYT piece. I have no idea what makes you think that was my intent. I have no problem with that piece. This is what that piece was about: "71 percent of the nation's 15,000 school districts had reduced the hours of instructional time spent on history, music and other subjects to open up more time for reading and math." I have no quarrel with the notion that schools are "narrowing the curriculum" to focus on what's on the test. I think that's sad. I never liked anything about that law when it was passed and I don't like it now. But no one is taking that position. The point I was countering was not from the NYT but your own point: "1. The failure to adequately fund the big Bush education bill created an almost nonfunded mandate. So as schools find it necessary to bring their students up to testing levels in reading and math, they must find the money from their own budgets." I responded to your point with this: "I understand your annoyance at the unfunded mandates, but, if there's any relevance of them to the question of studying math and English all day, you haven't shown it." What I've been "countering" is your attributing the situation on lack of funding. I could not see how funding entered into it. I tried to explain how logically the connection between funding and the situation was weak, how it wasn't plausible that a funding shortfall was the salient factor. Finally I asked you directly to connect the dots between funding and the situation and you still have not done so. Now you're telling me that my points don't counter the NYT article. Well, of course they don't. The NYT didn't make an issue of funding. You did.