[nabs-l] Any thoughts on Washington seminar?

[Kirt Manwaring]

Sean,
  What about the Common Core State Standards?  I thought that every
state in the union has committed to follow these guidelines.  I know
that's not the same as the federal government mandating anything, but
doesn't it almost amount to the same thing?  It was these common core
standards that our affiliate emphasized the most in our lobbying.
  Best,
Kirt

On 2/23/11, Sean Whalen <smwhalenpsp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Good afternoon,
>
>
>
> George is correct. There are no national standards in education. NCLB
> requires states and local educational agencies, if they wish to continue to
> receive federal education funding, to test and measure the progress of their
> students. There is no definition of standards on the federal level, and
> there is no common curriculum mandated by the federal government. Each state
> is left to set standards and define what students must know, they are only
> required to test students to see if students are achieving the standards
> states have set forth. NCLB does require that each state have only one
> standard, for all districts and all students. That "all students" ought to
> include blind and other disabled students.
>
>
>
> Certainly there could be implemented laws or regulations that would
> encourage states, with financial or other incentives, to create better
> standards for the education of blind kids without mandating specific
> standards from the federal Department of Education. Personally, I have no
> problem with federal requirements for standards or curricula, but I realize
> many people do not feel that way. States rights, I suppose, include the
> right to have a woefully inadequate public education system, as long as it
> is equally inadequate for all students statewide.
>
>
>
> Regarding the political viability of the commission to start working out
> what might be done to address the problem, I agree it is a tough sell
> politically in this environment, but so would be virtually any legislative
> initiative that involved additional resources being expended. That would be
> most legislative initiatives we could take up. The mere fact that a thing's
> success does not look immediately probable in no way implies that the thing
> is not worth fighting for. Yes, IDEA reauthorization would have been a nice
> time to address this, but that ship has sailed. Besides, we were too busy
> arguing that we former SSDI recipients with jobs should still be raking in
> the government cheese. I agree that political realities and opportunities
> should play a large determining role in what legislative initiatives we take
> up, and, in my opinion, this is one place where are legislative strategy has
> occasionally fallen short, but I also very much believe that if you see an
> issue that needs addressing, you should bring it to people's attention, lay
> the groundwork for success, and wait for the opportunity to effect the
> change you desire. I think that is what we are doing.
>
>
>
> Regarding the 21st Century Communications Act, yes, it is sad that our
> inability to acknowledge that the ACB ever does anything good stopped us
> from vocally supporting it, but it has passed. What more ought we to be
> doing to support it? While it does cover some devices of major import, it
> left many untouched in its initial form, and, in fact, was largely gutted
> before passage. Even the initial version of the bill was not a panacea, and
> the passed version, relative to broad access to technology, scarcely makes a
> dent. I don't think we are concerned about products that can be easily made
> accessible. I am troubled by the knowledge that, one day in the not too
> distant future, I might not be able to use my stove, washer, or thermostat
> at home, or the fax machine, data base, or communications device at work.
> Again, is this a tough political sell? Of course. Does that mean it is not
> worth fighting for? To my mind, no. We may have to bang this drum for a long
> time, and we will likely never achieve the 100% access we desire, but the
> problem is real and the solutions are viable. I don't mind banging my head
> against the wall on an issue of fundamental fairness like this, though I
> certainly did not enjoy the repeated noggin knocking over the SSDI issue,
> which was grounded in a notion that was fundamentally unfair, and I would
> submit, at odds with espoused NFB philosophy.
>
>
>
> Take care,
>
>
>
> Sean
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nabs-l mailing list
> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nabs-l:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/kirt.crazydude%40gmail.com
>