David Kocher tells Sheila King about 
 Parental Involvement on 05-29-96  08:11:
 ->    Michael Simpson, legal counsel for the National Education
 -> Association, said the bill would cause schools to provide a
 -> "designer curriculum" for each child.
 DK> As it should be.  "Cookie cutter" education practices serve everyone
 DK> but the student.
 Are you saying that a designer curriculum for each child is what is
 needed? I would say that the ideal situation certainly would have an
 individual education plan for every student. The reality is that it
 would be impossible to do unless you are willing to pay lots of extra
 people do get this done.
 -> "We have not established any parameters for involvement," she
 -> said.  According to Watson, "giving parents responsibility for
 -> schoolwide decisions without specifying who is accountable can be
 -> dangerous," writes the paper.  Few think they can manage IBM, but
 -> "Everyone thinks they can teach or run a public school," she
 -> said.
 DK> What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. One could
 DK> argue that giving educators responsibility for schoolwide decisions
 DK> without specifying who is accountable can be dangerous, especially for
 DK> the end product - the student and his/her education.  We delude
 DK> ourselves if we think "accountablility" is wrapped up in "if you don't
 DK> like the school board, vote them out."  Accountability should carry
 DK> standard management practices, like IBM - you don't produce, you're
 DK> gone, and a producer takes your place.
 
 How do we define what production means? Right now, it is more often
 scores on standardized tests..
... God's existence will be proven when adequate funding is provided.

Member of Families Against Internet Censorship:
www.rmii.com/~fagin/faic, email faic@rmii.com
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------