What seems to missing here is the concept discussed in the original article of how the penalties written into the NCLB legislation for not getting students above the required minimums actually disincentivizes schools and therefore teachers from exerting any effort to keep the more gifted children engaged.  If your yearly job review was almost totally based on what percentage of your students met a minimum standard, what would you do?
Simply modifying NCLB so that it used a 'valule-added' evaluation of schools systems would still challenge the schools to bring the poorer performing students up to standards while still providing incentives to continue pushing the more gifted students.
In the end, this is a question of long term equality.  What sort of career path do we envision for the student who settles for meeting a minimum standard?  Its the gifted children from challenging backgrounds who have the best chance of truly prospering in the new global economy.  A well to do child who is not being challenged can be sent to a private school by his parents; the underprivileged child likely will not have that option, especially if he is not challenged to generate the type of academic record that might earn him a scholarship.

Posted at December 27, 2005 6:33 PM in response to Gifted Children Left Behind?

I really believe all of this debate over whether Karl Rove broke the law when he disclosed Valerie Plame's connection to the CIA is almost besides the point.  I work for a defense contractor and have a clearance.  From the first day my clearance came through, I've been very thoroughly trained in how much care I must take to protect the information that is entrusted to me.  If I even accidently expose classified information, say if I left a document out on my desk and someone not cleared reads it, my company has to report this incident to the government, I would receive a serious reprimand, and could possiibly even be reassigned.  If the information I put at risk ended up appearing in a newspaper, I would probably be fired.  It would not matter if any law had been violated.  I would simply be viewed by my management and the government as not being worthy of the trust required to handle classified information, and therefore incapable of performing the duties for which I was hired.
Karl Rove's conversations with the press caused a CIA employee working in the critical area of WMD, and by association the shell company which helped make up her cover, to be exposed to the public.  It does not matter if he meant to do it or not.  The fact that he apparently had similar conversations with multiple reporters makes it clear that this was not simply an accidental slip of the tongue that he would later reqret, but rather a deliberate communication with little or no regard for the possible consequences.  No individual with this little regard for his responsibilities should be allowed to continue in such a highly sensitive position in our government.
I've listened to several Republicans attempting to defend Mr. Rove this evening by labeled Joe Wilson as a partisan.  In my mind, this does not excuse his actions but rather exposes his motives.  This was not an act of government service.  it was a purely political response to what the Bush administration viewed as a political attack from their perceived enemies.  That the CIA's ability to protect our country from the proliferation of WMD's may have been harmed in the process is all the more inexcusable for the motives that led to the exposure.

Posted at July 12, 2005 4:53 PM in response to This Just In...