Re: Education

[Jim Green <JMGreen@SISNA.COM>]

Joe, you seem to have missed the point; It is not a reduction of funds for
science I am promoting -- it is the terrible obfuscation of the federal
government which I object to.   If the states are given block grants OR if
my federal taxes are reduced,  the needed money can be administered by the
state.  Or do you feel that the likes of Clinton is more concerned about
your child's education than your local legislator -- whom you can vote out
if s/he is not !!!!  Or do you think that the federal DEd has shown more
competence and fiscal efficiency than your local school board -- whom you
may vote out if they are not.

For me this is a no-brainer.

Jim Green

At 06:56 28 02 2000 , you wrote:
> In plan English, I think your nuts.  I know local folks who are trying
> very hard to move the science curriculum in positive ways, and
> desperately need funds to do the professional development.  Eisenhower
> money will do that, but there are so many other pressures on that money
> that unless some of it is earmarked for science, it will go away.
>
> cheers
>
> joe
>
> On Sun,
> 27 Feb 2000, Jim Green wrote:
>
> > Yes, phone your senators and tell them that you support block grants and
> > that the the federal government should keep its nose out of education all
> > together.  In fact tell them that the Dept of Education should be buried
> > peacefully in a distant part of the galaxy -- and that your taxes should be
> > reduced by the amount given to the DEd.
> >
> > Jim Green
> >
> >
> > >The new FY2001 proposal has a uncategorized block fund for teacher
> > >professional development written into it, but because of the proposed
> > >removal of the prior Congressional $250 mil stipulation, districts could
> > >be considered in compliance with just $1 of professional development
> support.
> >
> > .
> >
> > Jim Green
> > mailto:JMGreen@sisna.com
> > http://users.sisna.com/jmgreen
> >

Jim Green
mailto:JMGreen@sisna.com
http://users.sisna.com/jmgreen