Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
I said it was - yes. But what is wrong with gathering statistics at a national level so you can compare who is doing well and who isn't? As a taxpayer I want to know how well my state is spending my education dollars compared to other schools. If there is one thing worth spending money on it is that.
Unfunded mandate? How much money does it cost to administer tests? In addition, they should be testing anyway. And if they are testing, why not use the federal standardized test instead of the state test so we can learn more from the statistics? The only reason why the state would not want to use the standardized tests if they don't want their taxpayers to know how much they are screwing up.
If this is an unfunded mandate, the school districts are screwing up by not testing their students. It is nice that the federal government want's to throw some money in to help, but it shouldn't be necessary.
It is not like the Federal Government is telling them to provide for trumpet lessons and then not coughing up the money. They are telling them, when they test, they should use the national test so we can have a better understanding of what is working and what is not. If this forces the school to spend money on testing for the first time, then great.
|
Are you saying, give your students this test and we, the federal government, are putting in place consequences of some sort depending on how the test comes out?
Spanky, come on, fess up, this is one big federal mandate you are advocating. Don't be afraid of it. But read George Will's article that you posted above if you want to know the pros and cons of the big federal program.
