In a Republic, we the people elect other citizens to represent us and make decisions on our behalf. Minnesota Republicans have chosen to abdicate that power and turn the state into a direct democracy. They have done so because governing in a Republic is hard and requires compromise while governing in a democracy is easy as you can simply pass all the difficult and complex issues of the day onto the people and claim no responsibility in their passage. It was for “the people” after all…

The St. Cloud Times ran a good editorial run down of the current amendment situation:

Aside from the merits of these individual proposals, here are some questions to consider. Will they make us a better state? Will they improve the quality of life for our citizens? Will they help position Minnesota in the global marketplace? Finally, why this sudden rush for multiple amendments?

Lawmakers have a duty to enact laws for the benefit of the state, and they are accountable for those laws. Government by constitutional amendment is an irresponsible sidestep and a wasteful sideshow that hurts our state.

Government by constitutional amendment is wrong and flies in the face of everything “Constitutional” conservatives claim to hold dear. It was wrong when the legislature governed through the legacy amendment (something I voted against) and it is wrong now. Perhaps one day conservatives will go back to governing as a Republic but I suspect that day will come only when they are out of power and it is politically expedient to do so.

Seriously, Republicans, I don’t even mind that she is lying through her teeth about budget surpluses and deficits between Republicans and DFLers. All I can focus on is how clueless she sounds. Please, for the sake of all Minnesotans, produce more Mary Franson updates and see if you can’t get them on the talking picture boxes all over the state.

Everybody needs a little crazy Steve King to brighten their day. ENJOY!

HA HA HA, If only we could abort the liberals! Or something…

It’s hard for me to dampen their celebration because I wish I could celebrate with them. NCLB has been awful. It has taken the educational experience and boiled it down to a bubble test followed by a beat down. That being said, teachers ought not be celebrating. They should be worried. In fact, teachers ought to be more worried now in the absence of NCLB than in its continued implementation. They ought to be more worried because in order to get a waiver, Minnesota will be forced to dive head long into the most ill conceived education policy initiative since, well, NCLB.

So the waiver frees us from this:

The waiver granted by U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan will free numerous Minnesota schools — including some that graduate most of their students — from compliance with a series of burdensome requirements to show continuous progress on standardized tests educators have long insisted have no practical value for students or teachers.

And replaces it with this:

states will be expected to establish new testing and accountability systems, which set “ambitious but achievable” academic targets, and could account for growth in student academic progress over time. Those systems should also include interventions tailored to the needs of specific student populations.

I see, so we are trading in a system of standardized tests that labelled a SCHOOL a failure over time and replacing it with a system of standardized tests that label SCHOOLS a failure over time. The replacement for NCLB goes a step further in demonizing teachers by using flawed methods in the guise of evaluation.

So, forgive me if I cannot get excited about this waiver because I don’t see a difference between NCLB and its replacement. Perhaps some non-educator could enlighten me…

Recent studies, however, appear to vindicate the opinions of teachers across this country that using test scores in evaluations simply does not work:

As one very concrete example, New York City adopted a “performance pay” plan linked to test scores for three years. They abandoned it a few months ago when the RAND Corporation found zero impact of the program.

…

One study [PDF], sponsored by the American Educational Research Association and the National Academy of Education and focused on Houston, found “most researchers have concluded that value-added modeling (VAM) is not appropriate as a primary measure for evaluating individual teachers.”

No teacher I have ever spoken with believes that linking test scores to individual evaluations is a good idea. Additionally, no teacher I have ever spoken to has ever been opposed to or scared of being evaluated on their performance. When policymakers actually listen to teachers and collaborate to develop an evaluation that works to replace “Last In First Out” we will happily accept that change. Sadly, policymakers seem intent on ignoring teachers and continuing on with their flawed reform.

I am posting this for no other reason than the shear humor of watching Representative Mary Franson demonstrate how little she knows about, well, ANYTHING. It really is painful to watch. You really have to feel sorry for the people of House District 11B who apparently felt this was the best and brightest they could find in the district. Just let me end with, OBAMACARE!!!!