BCT Editorial – 9/21/10

This page was last updated on September 21, 2010.

Educational boondoggle; Editorial; Beaver County Times; September 21, 2010.

Before I begin, I oppose the NCLBA (and its base, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965) because the Constitution delegates no education powers to the federal government. The 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.” Therefore, federal government involvement in education is extra-constitutional at best, and is probably unconstitutional.

As a result of the above, the NCLBA is voluntary and I can’t believe any legitimate newspaper isn’t aware of this fact. Schools and states don’t have to follow federal rules when they don’t accept federal education dollars. Check the various education acts – including the NCLBA – if you have doubts.

For heaven knows what reason, the Times has an editorial history of opposing tests to evaluate what kids learn, whether the tests are mandated by the feds (which I oppose as noted above) or the states. Previous examples include “Testing,” “Test results,” “Test happy,” and “Incomplete grade.” One of the gripes is the use of tests pushes teachers to “teach to the test” as if that’s something bad. Isn’t the purpose of standardized tests to ensure students learn those things we as a society deem important to learn? Therefore, doesn’t it make sense to “teach to the test?” By “teaching to the test,” teachers are teaching students what we’ve determined is important.

Then, after claiming tests don’t tell us what kids learn, the Times publishes editorials asserting this or that school district is failing its students and taxpayers and uses test scores as proof! Using the Times own logic, how do we know those allegedly failing school districts aren’t really doing a top notch job? In none of its editorials decrying testing has the Times suggested a means to “measure of the quality of education.”

This is at least the second Times editorial to reference the Ravitch book. This time, though, the editorial provided the full name of the book because doing so supported this editorial’s message.