Sunday, July 14, 2013


The New York Times' lead editorial today is about testing in the schools.  Of course, it starts from the premise that the Bush Administration's insistence on universal testing in public schools was motivated by some real Republican desire to improve the quality of public education:

"The theory behind the No Child Left Behind Act was that holding schools accountable for test scores would force them to improve instruction for groups of children whom they had historically shortchanged."

How can anyone who has followed the history of the Republican love affair with charter schools, vouchers, home schooling, and anything else that eats away at the quality of our public schools possibly believe that for a second?   And at this point in time, how can people delude themselves into thinking that the Republican party gives a damn for anyone but the rich?

Here is the obvious truth about testing:  School testing is linked to the resources that must be provided to schools.  The better a school tested, the more money it would receive to educate its students.  And we all know perfectly well that poor children in poor communities are never going to have available to them the many advantages that rich children have, so better off school districts are always going to do better on these tests.  The entire regimen of testing was designed for one purpose only, and that was to provide an excuse to transfer more money from the poor to the rich.

That is all that the Republican party exists for, as we all well know- cutting food stamps, cutting Social Security, cutting Medicaid, so that rich people and their corporations can receive more and more of our national wealth.  Why would anyone think they would act any differently when it comes to education?


joseph said...

Dear Mr. Eagle,

What company makes money off the tests? Doesn't someone have to pay the testing companies? As I recall, some entity is making quite a bit of money of this project. Every teacher I have talked to thinks the concept of standard testing to determine the quality of educators and education is stupid.

Green Eagle said...

It only seems stupid if you think its purpose is to improve education. If you see it, like all Republican ideas, as nothing but a way to further disadvantage the poor and help the rich, it makes perfect sense.

joseph said...

Mr. Eagle,

Did a little research while I watch the White Sox lose.

Green Eagle said...

Well, Joseph, what fun would it be beating up on poor people if you couldn't make any money out of it at the same time?