September 26, 2006

As if you didn't know

The latest NEA (National Education Association) newsletter features a Q&A with Dolores Huerta, who co-founded the United Farm Workers with César Chávez, regarding how to best educate farm workers' children.

But Republican educators beware: As Felix pointed out back in April, Huerta detests the GOP! She said "Republicans hate Latinos," and "Large numbers of the Republican Party are anti-immigrant or anti-Latino." Her "proof"? Repubs have sponsored numerous "anti-immigrant" bills in Congress. Not "anti-illegal immigrant" bills, mind you, but "anti-immigrant" bills.

Sigh.

Another NEA monthly nugget that always intrigues me are the floating statistics that pop up at various spots throughout the pages, sort of like Sergio Aragones' little cartoons in Mad magazine. One says "70: the percentage of Americans who say Congress should restore funding for NCLB and special education." The source is the National School Boards Association. I've never heard of that group, but that aside, the wording of this bit suggests that Congress has cut off funding for these programs. Since that isn't the case, we'll assume this meant to say "restore full funding. Which then begs the following: What constitutes "full funding"? It's a fairly safe assumption what the NEA's answer would be.

The reason it's a safe bet that the NEA meant "full funding" above is because in the previous two pages, another stat is presented that says "85: The percentage of Americans who believe Congress is cheating children when it doesn't fully fund educational programs." This is interesting because the federal government is the one government least responsible for education funding. State and local governments are primarily responsible for those monies. And, again, what is meant by "fully funded"? Based on whose criteria?

If the NEA is inferring unfunded federal mandates in these examples, so be it. That can be a legitimate gripe worthy of debate. But (again) as Felix noted elsewhere, consider another unfunded mandate that the NEA supports: that of [mandated] state support for illegal immigrants.

Consistency? Nope.

Posted by Hube at September 26, 2006 07:17 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Does the NEA use language that is biased to make its point? Absolutely. So does every other group in a similar position. I think that's COM 101 at most colleges and universities.

I agree that the Federal government is the entity least responsible for education funding. Isn't it a bit ironic, though, that they are becoming the most responsible for education mandates and reform? I believe part of the point in this funding debate is: if you mandate it, pay for it. Don't leave it to local school boards and communities to fund mandates they didn't create. I think there is a decent argument there. It's either local control-local funding, or federal control-federal funding. Forcing federal control-local funding on communities and boards often leads to problems, inconsistencies, and discontent.

Posted by: Mr. Teacher Man at September 29, 2006 02:47 PM

Run for president of the DSEA on a pro education platform!

Posted by: steamboat willy at September 29, 2006 04:41 PM

Hey, bon, je travaille au sein de petit oprateur, mais je suis certain que nous pouvons porter ce numro, et sans votre contrat, il faut juste une facture avec ce numro en clair (prover la proprit)

Posted by: coupon codes american girl shipping at September 7, 2016 07:17 AM

Post a comment









Remember personal info?