Day: April 21, 2005

I seem to be on a NCLB jag lately. USA Today had a front page story describing the NEA suit. The suit focuses on the contention that the government has not followed what was promised in legislation –

“Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local education agency, or school’s curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of State or local resources, or mandate a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act.” The NEA position contends “there has been a $27 billion funding shortfall in what Congress was supposed to provide schools to meet the law’s regulations and what has been funded” since 2002.

NEA position statement

The Department of Education web site provides a reply to the NEA position. The ed department claims that funding for education has been increased and urges NEA to quit wasting money and focus on educating children. The Dept of Ed position claims “…studies assert the law is appropriately funded and not a mandate.” The “not a mandate” part confuses me. The Feds say – here is your money spend it how you want, but if you do not do this and this and this, students will be able to go elsewhere, tutoring will be provided, etc. The part about “spend it how you want” is clearly not a mandate, but the part about consequences sounds punitive and thus does imply that the money should be spent in some ways and not others.

This seems to be the kind of argument in which the participants keep repeating the same thing over and over – only louder. On the surface, claims that are being made (increased funding, billions in shortfall) seem to be contradictory and no one wants to put the issues into a frameword that allows a clear picture of whether this is an unfunded mandate or not. Our kids do deserve better than this.

EdWeek Summary

Technology and the teaching of history are not always perceived to go together. SRI presented some data at the Teaching American History grant meeting that ranked what history teachers felt that had learned from associated with a TAH grant. Learning about the classroom use of technology ranked low (infrequently mentioned as a benefit). Someone from the audience responded to this by raising his hand and stating that it was good educators were getting past their focus on technology. I am not certain I would interpret the data in the same way. Technology was not a focus of most TAH grants. Why would those participating in such grants claim they have learned about the classroom use of technology? Such a claim would not be true and not a function of the grants in which they were involved.

I did encounter some cites that promote the use of technology in the study of history:
Center for History and the New Media at George Mason University
Digital History

Cindy works on the Grand Forks Schools History Site.