请点击“start writing”谢谢
当我的儿子开始教育，他去了一所私立天主教学校。这不是我的选择 - 这是我前妻的选择。我想把他送到我在街上的公立学校。话虽如此，这是她和她的兄弟姐妹去的学校。我的前妻从自己的口袋里支付了学费，并没有想到税收美元去我们的儿子的学费。我对他在那所学校接受的教育没有投诉。教师是典范，课程，除宗教课外，是严格的。在学校没有特殊需要的孩子，和多样性？没有。
八年级后，我们送他到公立高中。同样，我对他在学校接受的教育没有投诉，他的老师一直并且继续值得称道。他的一个老师也是一个摔跤教练。当我的儿子在上午6:00到达学校去举重摔跤的时候，那个老师正在带我的儿子和他的同摔跤手通过他们的锻炼程序。他教一整天，直到晚上6:30，当练习结束后才回家。如果有双重见面，他在学校直到晚上8:30。如果是一个离开的会议，他可能不会回家，直到晚上9:00 - 他仍然必须打印文件
虽然不是所有的教师都是这样的，但很多都是。他们不仅要教书，还要解决冲突，玩社会工作者，在某些情况下玩妈妈或爸爸。他们知道如何做他们的工作，大多数做得很好。
这导致我到教育部长提名Betsy DeVos的证词 - 特别是一个询问的线，弗兰肯教授。
参议员弗兰肯：当我第一次参加2009年的参议院时，我在明尼苏达州有一个圆桌会议。他说，我们认为MSLB测试是尸体解剖。我知道他的意思。学生在4月份参加考试，他们在6月下旬得到结果。教师不能使用测试结果来通知他们的教学。我看到在明尼苏达州，大多数学校正在进行计算机适应性测试，计算机测试，你马上得到的结果，适应性，所以你可以在年级以外测量。这让我看到了参议员引用的熟练程度问题，而不是增长。我想就你对评估的相对优势发表意见，并用它们来衡量能力或成长。
DeVos女士：我认为如果我正确地理解你的问题，我会将其与能力和掌握程度相关联，因此每个学生都根据他们在每个学科领域取得的进步来衡量。
弗兰肯：这是增长。这不熟练。换句话说，他们所做的增长不是增长。熟练程度是一个任意标准。
DeVos女士：熟练程度是如果他们已经达到三年级水平阅读等。
弗兰肯：我在说的是熟练程度和成长之间的争论，你的想法是什么。
DeVos女士：我只是问澄清，然后 -
弗兰肯：这是一个在教育界已经辩论多年的课题。我主张以成长为主席，而这个委员会的每一个成员都知道，因为老师忽略了那些不会低于熟练程度的孩子，他们忽视了底层的孩子，他们知道永远不会熟练。我一直是增长的倡导者。但令我惊讶的是，你不知道这个问题。
现在，如果你问我增长和教育水平之间的差异，我不知道答案。我不是教育家，所以没有理由让我知道差异。我知道几个老师，我问他们对DeVos的见证的意见。一旦我们从我们学校里狂野的灰熊上移开，我们就到了弗兰肯先生的询问线。最让我震惊的反应是来自一位在教室里工作超过20年的教育家。
任何有5年以上和最低限度准备的老师在她的见证期间可能比德沃斯夫人表现更好。她表现出完全缺乏教育基础。当她不能区分生长和熟练时，这是最明显的。
DeVos女士是聪明的，同时也是无知的。不清楚她是故意还是故意无知。她对弗兰肯先生关于熟练程度和成长的回应是最有说服力的。
她有一个议程，她知道她的议程，但是当涉及到教育的坚果和螺栓，她似乎是无知的。但她作为一个教育专家在追求她的议程时离开。这是特朗普政府的简称：无能，无知，追求会伤害大多数美国人的议程。在DeVos的情况下，她想拿你的税金，并把这笔钱给利润公司教育我们的孩子。
这些公司学校（我们称之为他们真正的，因为他们不是“特许学校”）往往被认为比公立学校更低的标准。他们不需要特别需要的孩子，因为他们花费太多的教育，而且从利润中获利。
这都是学校选择的幌子。但真正的是，我们的税金被盗，以丰富企业教育公司。如果所谓的财政保守派真的关心我们的税款在哪里，那么警钟应该离开他们的头。学校的选择只不过是企业福利，没有责任。如果你想把你的孩子送到私立学校，请随意这样做，但不要指望纳税人支付。
公立学校从一开始就是这个国家的一部分。作为西方国家在革命战争后开放，国会，然后根据联邦条例，通过了1785年的土地条例，其中特别呼吁在新西部地区的每个乡镇的公立学校。
每个乡镇都应该为美国保留这四个地段，编号为8,11,26,29，在乡镇的每个分数部分中，有许多相同的数字，可以在其上找到，未来销售。应保留每个乡镇的第16号地块，用于所述乡镇内的公立学校的维修。
它不说第16号将保留给特许学校或营利学校。具体说，每个乡镇都应该有一个公立学校的保留地。没有学校选择：教育被视为在政府的权限范围内。
如果我们允许DeVos及其盟友以学校选择的名义破坏我们的公共教育制度，我们可能会失去我们的公立学校。一旦他们走了，就不会有他们回来。
上面是Google翻译下面是原文 链接里转帖来的
When my son started his education, he went to a private Catholic school. This was not my choice—it was my ex-wife’s choice. I wanted to send him to the public school down the street from me. That being said, it was the school that she and her brother and sisters went to. My ex-wife paid his tuition out of her own pocket and did not expect tax dollars to go toward our son’s tuition. I have no complaints about the education he received at that school. The teachers were exemplary and the curriculum, other than religion classes, was stringent. There were no special needs children in the school, and diversity? There was none.
After eighth grade, we sent him to a public high school. Again, I have no complaints about the education he is receiving in school, and his teachers have been and continue to be commendable. One of his teachers is also a wrestling coach. When my son arrives at school at 6:00 AM to go lift weights for wrestling, that teacher is there taking my son and his fellow wrestlers through their workout routine. He teaches all day and does not go home until 6:30 at night when practice is over. If there is a dual meet, he is at school until 8:30 PM. If it is an away meet, he may not get home until 9:00 PM—and he still has to grade papers.
While not all teachers are this dedicated, many of them are. They not only have to teach, they also have to resolve conflicts, play social worker, and in some cases play mom or dad. They know how to do their job, and most do it well.
Which leads me to secretary of education nominee Betsy DeVos’ testimony—specifically a line of questioning that Sen. Al Franken pursued.
Sen. Franken: When I first got in the senate in 2009, i had a roundtable of principals in Minnesota. He said, we think of the MSLB test as autopsies. I know exactly what he meant. The students take the test in April, they get the results in late June. The teachers cannot use the test results to inform their instruction. I saw that in Minnesota, the majority of the schools were taking a computer adaptive test, a computer test where you get the results right away, and adaptive so you can measure outside the grade level. This brings me to the issue of proficiency, which the senator cited, versus growth. I would like your views on the relative advantage of assessments and using them to measure proficiency or growth.
Ms. DeVos: I think if I am understanding your question correctly around proficiency, I would correlate it to competency and mastery, so each student is measured according to the advancements they are making in each subject area.
Sen. Franken: that's growth. That's not proficiency. In other words, the growth they are making is not growth. The proficiency is an arbitrary standard.
Ms. DeVos: proficiency is if they have reached a third grade level for reading, etc.
Sen. Franken: I'm talking about the debate between proficiency and growth, what your thoughts are on that.
Ms. DeVos: I was just asking the clarify, then --
Sen. Franken: this is a subject that has been debated in the education community for years. I have advocated growth as the chairman, and every member of this committee knows, because with proficiency teachers ignore the kids at the top who are not going to fall below proficiency, and they ignore the kid at the bottom who they know will never get to proficiency. I have been an advocate for growth. But it surprises me that you don't know this issue.
Now, if you asked me the difference between growth and proficiency in regard to education, I would not know the answer. I am not an educator, so there is no reason for me to know the difference. I do know several teachers, and I asked them their opinions of DeVos’ testimony. Once we all moved on from the grizzly bears running wild in our schools, we got to Sen. Franken’s line of questioning. The response that struck me the most was from an educator who has been in the classroom for more than 20 years.
Any teacher with 5+ years and minimal preparation could have performed better than Mrs. DeVos during her testimony. She showed a complete lack of an educational foundation. This was most apparent when she could not differentiate between growth, and proficiency.
Ms. DeVos is smart—and ignorant at the same time. It’s not clear if she is willfully or purposely ignorant. Her responses to Sen. Franken about proficiency and growth were most telling.
She has an agenda and she is knowledgeable about her agenda, but when it comes to the nuts and bolts of education, she appears to be ignorant. But she passes herself off as an expert in education in pursuit of her agenda. This is the Trump administration in a nutshell: incompetent, ignorant, and in pursuit of agendas that will harm the majority of Americans. In the case of DeVos, she wants to take your tax dollars and give that money to for profit corporations to educate our children.
Those corporate schools (let’s call them what they really are, as they are not "charter schools") are often held to a lower standard than public schools. They do not have to take special needs children as they cost too much to educate—and that takes away from profits.
This is all under the guise of school choice. But really it’s the theft of our tax dollars to enrich corporate education companies. If so-called fiscal conservatives really cared about where our tax dollars go, then alarm bells should be going off their heads. School choice is nothing more than corporate welfare, with no accountability. If you want to send your child to a private school, feel free to do so, but do not expect the taxpayers to pay for it.
Public schools have been a part of this nation from the beginning. As western lands opened up after the Revolutionary War, Congress, then under the Articles of Confederation, passed the Land Ordinance of 1785 which specifically called out public schools for every township in the new western territories.
There shall be reserved for the United States out of every township the four lots, being numbered 8,11,26,29, and out of every fractional part of a township, so many lots of the same numbers as shall be found thereon, for future sale. There shall be reserved the lot No. 16, of every township, for the maintenance of public schools within the said township…
It does not say lot No. 16 will be reserved for a charter school or a for-profit school. The specifically says that every township should have one reserved lot for a public school. There was no school choice: education was seen as within the purview of government.
If we allow DeVos and her allies to rip apart our public education system in the name of school choice, we could lose our public schools. And once they are gone, there will be no getting them back.
选择“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
选择“don't run on pages on this domain”
