Clinton: Not As Scary As I Thought
Last night my wife and I, both registered Republicans, attended the Hillary Clinton town hall meeting at Stratham Middle School. Everyone but us seemed to be sporting the Hillary sticker and some wielded Hillary signs. It was likely as crowded as the attending Fire Marshall would allow. Senator Clinton was preceded by State Senator Maggie Hassan and two New York constituents of Clinton. They all gave strong endorsements with the latter two speaking to personal services she had given them. Then to great applause Senator Clinton began her delivery which ended an hour and one-half after they opened the doors. She ended by thanking everyone and it seemed most attendees, including the two of us, thought it was over and stood with many making for the doors. Then she opened the meeting up to questions amongst the chaos that had ensued. As we had not yet eaten and it was after eight, we left and did not hear the questions and answers.
Senator Clinton has a grasp on the problems facing Americans, though I cannot agree with her when she says or implies they are all the result of President Bush's ineptness. Some issues, such as health care, have been around since she and Bill were in the White House. When she got to the issue of education, this was where she really went off the deep end. "When I am President," she says, "I will repeal No Child Left Behind." It seemed the crowd went wild. It is a common belief, though totally at odds with the facts, that this is President Bush's program. The facts are that it was an Act having large bipartisan backing, including that of Senator Ted Kennedy who vocalized his support. It is no surprise to me that those in a party that seeks the support of the teacher's unions would be opposed to a program that establishes educational standards and measures performance against those standards.
I recently joined the Rockingham Adult Learning Center to volunteer as a math tutor. I learned that, on average, over 10 percent of adults in this county did not receive a high school diploma. Do we know why? When did they begin to fail? If Senator Clinton wants to trash a program that aims to correct the problems leading to failure to graduate high school, what will be put in its place? If the Act is broken, fix it or come up with something better that works. She proposes no solution for kids not achieving an adequate education. This is '60s thinking when so many wanted to trash what they felt wasn't working, but had no solutions to fix anything. I cannot buy into Senator Clinton being an agent of change when she speaks as she did last night about education.
One More NCLB Suggestion from ClintonSubmitted by englishmac on Thu, 01/03/2008 - 13:43.
After I posted last night, I remembered that Hillary Clinton had another suggestion regarding testing that I did agree with. She said that rather than measure schools solely on where kids are in terms of performance, a growth model should be used that measures how much kids are improving each year. I do believe that this is the only way you can really hold schools accountable. You can't have tests and suddenly require that "everybody learn" and expect magic to happen. However, if you accept the starting point that kids are at and monitor how they move forward, you can more accurately get a sense of learning and ongoing growth, a more reasonable expectation. I'm glad she suggested that model, and I know that I've heard other candidates discuss this as well.
Clinton and NCLBSubmitted by englishmac on Wed, 01/02/2008 - 23:45.
I, too, was at Clinton's forum at the middle school on December 21st. As an educator and a Democrat, I'm not supporting Clinton; I'm giving my support to Joe Biden. However, I did want to respond to your comments about NCLB. I post these comments to inform you of those comments and reflect on them as well.
She did offer a solution about NCLB during the question and answer period, but it was one that I found as frightening as NCLB. She said that one of the problems with NCLB is the inconsistencies. This is true, as the tests vary in format, quality, vigor, etc. from state-to-state, and they're based on state standards which also differ widely.
Her response to this inconsistency was to say that there should be national standards in place so that we can measure state-to-state differences and better understand what it means to not make adequate yearly progress. The idea of a national test and national curriculum standards really frightens me. Currently, I'm on a committee revising standards for the state of Massachusetts, and it's a complicated, locally-based process of figuring out what should be expected of students. Federal standards, even with the best of intentions, would be problematic in my opinion and only work further to disenfranchise teachers and students. Moreover, since the federal government spends so little on public education, it would be an even further expansion of federal influence. If we have federal learning standards, then I think we need to have federal school delivery standards, in which the federal government ensures that schools get the funding they need to provide the education that will allow students to meet the educational standards set. Right now, those don't exist in New Hampshire or most other states. Are we surprised when most test scores replicate the socio-economic status of communities?
To Clinton's credit, she also suggested that she wants to fully-fund special education, since that originates in federal law (IDEA). This would be tremendous.
I think that Clinton was exhausted that night and not in her best form.
Why Not So Scary?Submitted by Shadow63 on Sat, 12/22/2007 - 22:41.
She has worked on her image and really tries (and does) come across as less shrill and hard. She gets her jabs in at President Bush, but that is to be expected. However, what is still scary about her campaign promises, for example, is her health care plan. It is everybody in, cradle to grave with preventive services thrown in for good measure. She and many other candidates of both parties are attacking the health care problem from the wrong end. Making it affordable for all means working with the health care community to find ways to roll back the cost of medical services and cease the year after year double digit increases in its cost.
Editor's query: Why not so scary?Submitted by jgreenberg on Sat, 12/22/2007 - 20:16.
Your title raises a key point that your post touches on only briefly. Aside from agreeing that Clinton has a grasp of the problems facing America, what did she say or do that made her seem different from the image of her that is popular in Republican circles -- which is how I interpret your title. Feel free to correct me if I have the wrong impression.