SK>-> SK>Stating what students should learn, in a national curriculum, and
  >-> then >holding them accountable for it by testing them on it...I just
  >-> don't see >the booby traps there. Could you please elaborate on it
  >-> without the >analogies?
SK>-> Since I understand the analogies he offers I will give you an
A mil spec is a standard that must be met by a supplier.  Setting this
standard may in fact create a product that is not of the highest
possible quality for the $$$$ spent.  A National Curriculum by design
would probably be dumbed down to accommodate the lesser academically
inclined students.  The result could be that districts who must only
meet this minimum standard would be overly generic.  While it is nice to
believe that teachers would be able to hold a high standard in the
education process I have seen little in the current methodology to
indicate that is the case.
SK>I'm sorry, but this is just a bit too "Big Brother" for me to buy.
I'll give you one small example for the believe it or not.  To my
limited knowledge no history books used in the schools today inform
students that OUR government used soldiers as lab rats in nuclear above
ground testing even after they knew what the results would be.  The
freedom of information act brought this to light many years ago.
Now for the hypothetical, if tomorrow definite proof of extraterrestrials
was discovered would it be surpressed ?  What if it was proven without a
doubt the aides virus could be transmitted by mosquitos ?
Information is surpressed all the time by our government, right down to
the school district level.  I understand the reasoning behind the
surpression of information but can't say that I agree with it.  A
national curriculum as you and Charles envision I believe is one I could
support.  I am for raising the standards for education far above todays
level.  In addition I would like to see the US adopt a modified version
of the european style of education system.
 Teachers would find out about these things
  >on their own and be free to include them in their classroom instruction
  >as they deemed appropriate (a good argument in favor of teacher
  >tenure!).
By your statement IMO it would be a pretty good argument against teacher
tenure.  We all bring our bias to the floor and as educators need to
limit our personal input into the educational process.
SK>I'm having trouble imagining what these remarkable new developments
  >would be, but....in the interest of discussion I will assume it could
  >happen and offer the above scenario as an appropriate way of dealing
  >with it.
SK>I think one problem in this discussion, is a misunderstanding amongst
  >all the participants of what a "National Curriculum" would be. You, Tom,
  >seem to be interpreting it as some sort of "limiting" list of topics,
  >where teachers would not be allowed to teach anything not on the
  >approved National Curriculum list? Given your proximity to Texas, I'm
  >not surprised, as I understand that is the way a great deal of
  >instruction in Texas operates. IMHO that is bad news, and I dont' think
  >most of the teachers here are interpreting it that way (Chuck, your
  >thoughts?). I believe the teachers see such a National Curriculum as a
  >minimal list of topics which teachers would be allowed to supplement and
  >add to as appropriate. I also believe that most discussions on a
  >National Curriculum that I have read, advocate a reasonable amount of
  >flexibility for local control.
In defense of Texas which I know little about educationally.  They
probably have fallen victim to the teach to a test syndrome as their
livelihood depends on the performance of their students.
SK>BTW, having seen Dave's response, I don't think you are representing his
  >POV.
I was not aware I was attempting to represent Dave's POV.  I gave an
opinion which I believe was my POV.  I only pointed out that I
understand the mil spec idea which seem to confuse you.
___
 X QMPro 1.53 X a (uA4+o++WJ!u2M  j!O+!h <++o |+iLA :+oN .2oc_  oUaB)++iEe
--- Maximus 2.02
---------------