The American culture does not value education, its as simple as that. You can get 100,000 people to watch two barely-.500 football teams play a bowl game, but ask them to watch a documentary on science...they dont' want to know.
Story #4: NYT: Few Students Show Proficiency in Science
RUSH: Let's take a look some of the other media response to the State of the Union show last night. Sheryl Gay Stolberg in the New York Times: "Obama Pitches Global Fight for US Jobs in Address -- President Obama challenged Americans on Tuesday night to unleash their creative spirit, set aside their partisan differences and come together around a common goal of outcompeting other nations in a rapidly shifting global economy. In a State of the Union address to a newly divided Congress, Mr. Obama outlined what he called a plan to 'win the future'..." By the way, let me translate that for you. "Win the future" is all about 2012 and his reelection, and I'm serious. "Win the future" has nothing to do with American competitiveness or American advancement.
"Win the future" is all about 2012. This outline was "a blueprint for spending in critical areas like education." See, you can't believe the stuff he says anymore. It's just mindless, like Jim DeMint said. Spending on education? I don't know if you're like me. I'm insulted when I hear we aren't spending enough on education. That's all I hear is we spend money on education! We are paying taxes out the wazoo for a whole bunch of stuff. We're spending property taxes, income taxes, I don't care what it is -- and every day we're insulted. "We need to increase our investments in education!"
No, we don't. "Investments" in education are not the problem. Right here, New York Times, a story today: "Few Students Show Proficiency in Science, Tests Show -- On the most recent nationwide science test, about a third of fourth graders and a fifth of high school seniors scored at or above the proficiency level, according to results released Tuesday. Only one or two students out of every 100 displayed the level of mastery that the federal panel governing the tests defines as advanced, the government said. ... The science tests, known as the National Assessment of Education Progress, were administered in early 2009 to about 308,000 fourth graders and eighth graders and 11,000 12th-graders.
"They tested students’ knowledge and abilities in the physical sciences, life science and earth and space sciences, the government said. Because the Education Department changed the test since it was last administered in 2005, the latest results cannot be used to determine whether science achievement has risen or declined in recent years." Well, that's clever. They changed the tests so we don't know if we're doing any better or not. How'd they change the test? Did they dumb it down like everything else the Education Department does or did they make it harder? "A higher proportion of fourth-grade students scored at or above the proficient level in New Hampshire -- 47 percent -- than in any other state.
"In Montana, 41 percent of eighth graders scored at or above proficiency ... The bipartisan panel..." Bipartisan panel? What bipartisan panel? The National Assessment of Education Bipartisan Panel? What does that look like? What the hell do you have a bipartisan panel for in an education? Well, holy moly! You know what education is? You know why these test results are going down? "Education" equals money-for-teachers. Education doesn't equal test scores. By the same token, "infrastructure" equals money-for-public sector-unions. It doesn't mean new roads and bridges. We already did that. We did a stimulus bill, and for what? Nearly a trillion dollars to "fix our crumbling roads and bridges," and here's two years later and the president's State of the Union calling for more, but we didn't fix it.
Where'd the money go? It got spent. Well, I'll tell you where: Money for public sector unions. Education: Money for teachers unions. That's how you translate this stuff. Anybody in their right mind knows we don't need to spend any more money on education. Or put another way: Everybody knows we're not short-changing education, and that's the implication in these speeches. "We need to invest more in our educatioooon." No! The assumption is we're not investing in our kids, and that's not true. Well (snorts), maybe it is true. We're investing in the teachers. Well, we're investing in the teachers unions, and that's a big difference. But how do you put together a bipartisan education panel?
A liberal, a conservative, an evolutionist and a creationist, a warmer and a denier, a union member and a nonunion member? Let me summarize this for you. We got Sheryl Gay Stolberg, New York Times, "Obama Pitches Global Fight for US Jobs in Address." We need a blueprint for new spending in science and all of this, and we got a report here that says young skulls full of mush who excel at science are as rare in America as telephone booths, but it isn't because we're not spending enough money on them. This is not surprising to those of us who have followed education issues. But still, the results are depressing. Here's the obvious question, then, ladies and gentlemen.
We're spending all this money, we have been spending all this money for years, we've got the president calling for -- and we've had every president, by the way. It's nothing unique to Obama. Every president has exhorted us and our children to higher math scores and science scores. There's nothing new there. So the question is: If kids are not being taught and challenged in the sciences, what are they being taught? They've gotta be teaching them something in there. Well, okay, let's go down the list. Self-Esteem, Sex Education, Gym, Conflict Resolution, MTV 101, Sex Education, uhhh... Sex Education. Oh, yeah, polar bears, environmental destruction. We're teaching them a liberal political agenda. Exactly right. There are only so many hours in a schoolday and if they're not learning science, what are they learning?
That's right. Self-esteem! Self-esteem. "[E]ighth-grade students should be able to relate characteristics of air masses to global regions, and high school seniors should be able to evaluate two methods for helping to control an invasive species, the government said." Well, what is the most invasive species? The government is. The government is the most invasive species out there. Do you think that's being taught? Okay, let me... I'll put on my teacher hat. I think some of what we do here is teach. So let me put on my teacher cap here. "[S]eniors should be able to evaluate two methods for helping to control an invasive species," all right? For you students, I don't care how old you are, the most invasive species that we face today is the government. The next logical question is: How do you control this? How do you fight it? How do you stop this invasive species of government? It's very simple. It's called vote conservative.
No comments:
Post a Comment