Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 8:15 PMBy: so what? Senator Know-It-All Her speechwriter for that one sucked. Way too much jargon.

But Milbank's column was a waste of time. He made fun of things that weren't that bad. Doesn't every politician give a laundry list of what they've done on an issue in front of a crowd with interest in that issue?

Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 1:22 AMBy: hillary supporter Senator Know-It-All Voter. You hit the nail on the head. Alexander is in Duncan's camp now.

Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 1:25 AMBy: George N. Schmidt Senator Know-It-All Alexander, this particular snideness by proxy is a bit too much, even here.

It might have had some redeeming value if there had been any link to what Hillary actually said in New Hampshire, but instead it was a form of teacher bashing disguised as Hillary bashing.

There is not a profession in the world that doesn't use "jargon", for better or worse. One of the reasons why we're in the mess we are -- and not solving the real problems facing many public schools -- is that the way of discussing educational problems insists on oversimplifications like those that have been pioneered here in Chicago. "Failing schools" require "tough leadership" to provide "global solutions" blah blah bladity blah. And, of course, everyone can tell a "failing school" by looking at the ISAT or whatever. Wouldn't most people here rather have someone who noted the complexity of the data, instead of man and women who insist that any kid at Manley should be "achieving" (on, say, the ACT) as well as any kid at, say, New Trier?

Now Hillary Clinton and the education experts around her have other problems, many worth discussing here. Whether Hillary's "facts" were accurate or not is a separate question. For example, the "60 percent" figure needs to be triaged or it's worthless. The overhwelming majority of students (upwards of 90 percent) complete college in four or five years after completing high school in Chicago at Whitney Young or Northside or Payton. (And the main reason many take more than four years is the huge costs of college in the USA -- not something that was done to them in our public schools).

The question is what we do about our "leftover" children, the ones from poverty, mired in poverty, and usually in segregated public schools where the teachers and principals are blamed for all of the inequities in society. Was Hillary talking about those children, and not about the children (in Chicago) from Young, Payton and Northside?

Etc. Etc. Etc.

So Millbanks, not Clinton, is the asshole here. Thanks for bringing that to the attention of those of us who don't get to the Washington Post every day. However, you seemed to be cheerleading him, rather than providing anyone with what Hillary said. The upshot of that column (and most of the attacks on this candidate) is that the columnist is pissed off because she knows more about the topic than the pundit.

That's not difficult. Why did you think this was worth sharing?

Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 12:13 PMBy: obama on you tube Senator Know-It-All A quickie Google search didn't turn up any snarky columns about Obama on education, but you can see a snippet of him talking to the NEA at a convention in Philadelphia.

Here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVvPl1dJPJo

Pros: talks like a regular person; says we ought to hold ourselves accountable to give teachers what they need to do the job before holding teachers accountable for student results

Con (maybe to some on this blog): Dodge is the school from which he picks a teacher to praise

Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 5:43 AMBy: George N. Schmidt Senator Know-It-All "i'm an equal opportunity smart-ass, so if there was something funny and critical about obama let me know.

"...as to what i think about the candidates, my feeling is that none of the candidates has said or done anything particularly interesting on education. " (Alexander).

"Interesting" is the term I'd zero in on in my class on reporting, so here goes:

I heard (and reported) that Bill Richardson told Yearly Kos (first week of August) that "No Child Left Behind" was beyond fixing and has to be abolished. Other candidates have come almost as close as saying the same thing, but Richardson was speaking in context. He told his audience that he had tried to implement "No Child" when he was the executive (governor) of New Mexico and it's impossible. Not difficult, the word he used was "impossible..."

A close look at the other candidates shows that every one of them is extremely critical of "No Child Left Behind" and more than Richardson has stated on the record that No Child should be abolished. Not tweaked -- abolished.

That's been news since last summer. It's just not official news in places like Ed Week and Catalyst, because it doesn't conform to the corporate party line.