2007 March 15 Thursday
Congressional Republicans Sour On No Child Left Behind
Some Republicans in Congress are turning against the No Child Left Behind Act which seeks to make every child into the image of our college educated upper classes.
More than 50 GOP members of the House and Senate -- including the House's second-ranking Republican -- will introduce legislation today that could severely undercut President Bush's signature domestic achievement, the No Child Left Behind Act, by allowing states to opt out of its testing mandates.
Among the co-sponsors of the legislation are House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), a key supporter of the measure in 2001, and John Cornyn (R-Tex.), Bush's most reliable defender in the Senate. Rep. Eric Cantor (Va.), the House GOP's chief deputy whip and a supporter in 2001, has also signed on.
No Child Left Behind is better labelled No Lie Left Behind. The most noteworthy thing about it is the sheer size of the lie by which it was justified. It is based on the idea that America's children all live in Garrison Keillor's Lake Woebegone where "all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average". Schools which can not get dumber children to perform like higher IQ college bound kids are punished for the genetic endowments of their students.
Our intellectuals, such as they are, made the No Lie Left Behind legislation possible. What I want to know: which motivations are most important for the telling of these lies? One of the motives is the desire to avoid saying something that'll hurt the feelings of others. Don't want to tell a person or a group their kids are dumb. Is that the biggest motive?
Another motive for lying about relative abilities is the desire to reshape and remold society. This is a milder version of the dream to create New Soviet Man.
NCLB might yield one benefit: All the effort to achieve NCLB goals will fail. The educrats are going to have a hard time explaining why testing, teaching to the tests, longer school days, smaller classes, more school days per school year, and more money did not help. But I'm confident they'll make like our elites and come up with some suitable lies.
Here's a characterization of some such motivation from W.D. Hamilton's Review of Dysgenics:
"...it is all the more true that the vast majority of people are dissatisfied, wishing they were higher up, a thought which provides a basic reason why democracies (and especially, within democracies, such institutions as their state school systems) have to be unstable. We see a wobbly pyramid, and particularly within that pyramid we see certain side stairs all human examples have by which demagogues skip up a level or two so as to shout down to the restless base that the whole structure is somehow ‘wrong’. Under a different system, the demagogue shouts, ‘You could be higher too’."
Egalitarian lies appeal to the wounded pride of those who are lower down, through every sort of fault or inferiority of their own;
the demagogue knows this and can improve not only his status, but especially his power,
and he knows that he is quite safe in doing so.
He is protected by the smear approach which he has ready, in case anyone even dares to say:
but those people are unequal, and will remain so, regardless of how much power and aggression is brought to bear, for equalization.
When the state schools have equalization as their mission, above the continuity of the advancement of civilization, as they will,
when such demagogues have any opening, they tend to destroy anything good.
We need all-private schools with a perfect jungle of conflicting hierarchies;
then the demagogues' appeal is blunted and his chance at power eroded.
What is most surprising is not that most children (the 65% in the study that could figure out math intuitively) could figure out math intuitively or that 35% could not (the bottom 35% in IQ), but that the college educated researchers were surprised by this outcome:
Higher education takes the high IQ and puts them through a lot of classes that aren't relative to their career then takes most the credit when high IQ graduates do well economically. It would be like me teaching Shaquille O'Neal how to bounce a ball and then taking most the credit for him being a star center in the NBA. Higher education promotes the love of big government when it is able to sucker high IQ people to think it was due to their higher education-rather than their innate born ability-that is the reason they later become successful in life. It's only surprising that the college graduates conducting the service have lost the ability to innately reason what I say here because they've been dumbed down more than the children they test-thanks to the higher education establishment (big government).