More talk of destroying our schools. Harming our children. Threatening the future of our democracy and our economic well being.
A proposed state freeze and the renewed talk of replacing Act 60/68 have spurred more of the same scare rhetoric that we've been subject to with Act 82.
This from Rep. David Sharpe of Bristol: "This leads to the ultimate question. Do we believe that public education is important to the survival of our democracy and the success of our economy?"
No, Rep. Sharpe, that's not the question. The question is, how can the education bureaucracy more efficiently deliver a high quality education?
That question is coming up more and more in administrators' offices and school board meetings across Vermont, because of a law going into effect already. A valuable dialogue -- that very much addresses best practices, as well as finances -- is right now coming out of Act 82. School officials are grumbling. Kicking and screaming even. But they are engaging in constructive, not destructive dialogue.
School officials are starting to look at, for instance, some of the ideas we proposed in our Special Education Report. And these ideas are backed by solid best practice research. But they wouldn't be getting a look right now, if it weren't for Act 82.
Act 82 does not have as vocal and powerful a constituency as the status quo. So it might take courage for legislators to resist the temptation to vote to repeal it. Therefore, I ask them most humbly and without the slightest bit of rancor, please give Act 82 a chance to work.
Please see comment on "That Legacy Thing." I must have attached it to the wrong post, sorry.
Posted by: G. Cross | January 17, 2009 at 05:54 PM
Ideas that "you" proposed? Umm... Isn't it a little more accurate to say "ideas from others that I borrowed?"
BTW: If this is truly a blog, a place to exchange ideas, why are you not allowing me to post? Cat got your tongue?
Posted by: Dan Generous | January 19, 2009 at 11:36 AM
Things have gotten moved around a bit because George posted a comment under the wrong post, but that's no big deal.
Because we're a blog with moderated comments, they don't always come up when you want, and sometimes they are neglected. I know of no purposeful effort to censor you, Dan.
Since you've questioned my choice of words instead of my argument, I will defend that. I've proposed a combination of many things, a few things fairly original and unique, most not. I've given attribution where called for.
Now, since you've chosen to get personal, again rather than focusing on the argument, I will respond to that. All sorts of things get "proposed." The Governor proposed looking again at Act 60. The Revolt and Repeal people proposed exactly that in 2006. Whatever. Doesn't mean the Governor is some sort of a plagiarist. It means he's decided to focus on an idea two years later than some others.
The charge on GMD that our special education report plagiarized ideas was unfair, off-base, and reckless. Now you are insinuating something similar.
If you have something to add to the argument, add it. George does, and we respect him for it.
Posted by: Curtis Hier | January 19, 2009 at 11:53 AM