News-Record.com

Our treatment of local reaction to the president's State of the Union address in Wednesday's paper looks -- according to the version I'm now seeing in the system, shortly before we go to press -- really, really good.

And the quotes from the folks who graciously agreed to review the issues and the speech and give us their insights are -- again, according to the version I'm now seeing in the system, shortly before we go to press -- really, really short.

Frequently that's just a fact of life in print.

But that's why we have the Internet!! It gives us theoretically unlimited space!

(Well, that's why *I* have the Internet. I don't know why you have the Internet, and until your lawyer gets here you really don't need to tell me.)

I don't need unlimited space, but because our volunteers were so gracious, I did want to post ... well, their titles and a complete sentence or two, anyway.

EDUCATION/NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: Essentially, I think most educators and Americans would agree the intent of the No Child Left Behind law is commendable and support its goals -- highly qualified teachers, high standards, and an accountability system with the hope of educating all children. The issue with the legislation is not its intent but its implementation. As currently implemented, the legislation becomes nothing more than unfunded political rhetoric. Congress and the Senate are proposing major cuts to the legislation which further complicates its implementation. While facing these cuts, we have young children struggling to grow academically, and teachers and administrators trying their very best to meet the standards without the resources they need to do so. The NCLB accountability system will hold students, teachers, and administrators responsible for not meeting standards but conveniently exclude politicians and legislators for not providing the funds and resources necessary to help children learn. If we are going to use an assessment and evaluation process with our students then we must use the same process in the evaluation of the implementation of the legislation to determine where the gaps and flaws lie rather than simply pointing to the "easy-to-target" scapegoats (i.e., students, teachers, administrators).

Certain parts of the legislation are also extremely flawed. In theory, having a struggling student move from a "bad" school to a school that meets AYP seemingly solves the problem. However, there are social and economic issues for which the legislation does not account. Who says these students who move to new schools will be provided the quality instruction necessary to achieve? Who says these students will be met with "open arms" by their new teachers, administrators, or peers? The legislation does not account for transitioning issues. Moreover, what happens to those teachers and the administration in the "bad" schools? Do they migrate to the schools meeting AYP and how does this migration impact these schools? Rather than correcting the problem, the legislation seems to approve running from it. In essence, we treat the symptoms but not the disease, which is apparently systemic.

Parents and taxpayers should demand more focus be placed on student learning, which is not promised by an emphasis on testing. The legislation places too much emphasis on one testing measurement each year, which is a small snapshot of a student's ability on a given day. From these results, monumental decisions regarding a child's livelihood are made. Focusing on one measurement violates principles of assessment where we know we must triangulate data to draw sound inferences. These are the types of arguments parents, educators, and taxpayers must make as the No Child Left Behind legislation moves forward.

-- Anthony Graham, assistant professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, N.C. A&T School of Education.

* * * I am not convinced that No Child Left Behind is a good bill and Mr. Bush provided no data to support his conclusion that it's a good bill that should be supported. Yet, although I am very critical of this bill, I do think it has some positive features. My concerns about NCLB have to do with the overemphasis and simplistic emphasis on testing and the punitive response to schools with large numbers of low performing students. While I certainly want children who are not being given quality educations to have more and better opportunities, I think we treat the issues too simplistically and too punitively. There are wonderful teachers in the schools we call low performing or failing; these teachers and administrators are working hard to help their students succeed. Too often we respond punitively to their efforts when they are not successful at solving our society's many difficult problems: poverty, prejudice, etc.

I do, however, think the focus on accountability is very important! And I agree with Mr. Bush that we need more funding for educational programs. Low performing students need more resources and quality educational options. They need master teachers and skilled administrators. Simply moving students in "failing" schools to other schools rarely solves the problem.

In my opinion, the most important action we need to take was not mentioned by Mr. Bush. I believe we need to return respect and support to our classroom teachers. We need to let them do what they were trained to do and we need to hold them responsible for their actions.

-- Betty Epanchin, Professor and Associate Dean for Teacher Education and School Relationships and Director, The Teachers Academy; UNCG

* * *

I like the idea of having the lofty goal of making sure that all children get a proper education. I'm still not sure (President Bush is) prepared to back it up with concrete proposals that will strengthen the public school system. What I heard was talk about more money, and I think funding is important if you're going set this goal, but in the same context I heard him talking about, or at least hinting around about, vouchers, which I think tend to undermine public school system. ...

I think there's a lot of things that could be done with funding by the government to help retain good teachers because teacher retention is a problem. If you're going to keep kids engaged, you need good teachers, and too many teachers leave school because (of low pay). ... I've never heard anyone at the national level suggest providing tax cuts or tax credits for teachers that might make it more (financially) attractive to them. And generally, school districts all over the country ... have a lot of infrastructure needs that need to be met. You can see that right here in Guilford county. If you're going to really make an effort to educate all these children ... you need to pump more money in. That's inconsistent with the goal of trying to balance the budget, but you've got to have priorities and I think this would be one of them.

-- Richard Rawls, American Government and Civics teacher (and former trial lawyer), Dudley High School, Greensboro

ENERGY: I think (reducing gasoline usage via alternative fuels is) highly unrealistic for a number of reasons. You need to have corporate investment into infrastructure for production and delivery of needed fuel. We do know that capital budgets and decisions take a great deal of time. The oil industry and other related energy vendors have to put needed resources in place in order to create this delivery system. ...

There is nothing new in this statement of the president. He declared before -- I believe he used the term "addicted to oil" (last year). Programs that could have been put in place last year would have been a very good indication of whether he was serious. ...

(When President Bush took office), total oil imports accounted for 58 percent (of U.S. oil consumption; now, it's 65 to 69 percent. ... There was nothing in his speech last year or in what is coming out today [Tuesday -- Lex] to suggest that this call is realistic or that it could succeed.

-- Dr. Raid Riad Ajami, Charles A. Hayes Distinguished Professor of Business, Bryan School of Business, UNCG

* * *

UPDATE: i believe all the proposals related to energy in the President’s speech are socially admirable, technically feasible and politically achievable.

This is one area where the president’s goal and the Democratic Party’s demand are compatible.

Therefore, it is highly possible that the White House could reach a compromise with the congressional leadership to implement these policy objectives.

The easiest way to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel is to conserve energy and increase the energy efficiency of the automobiles we are driving.

For the past 20 years the automobile industry has resisted [efforts] to increase the fuel economy of the vehicles they manufacture.

As a result, Japanese manufacturers have been gradually taking over their markets around the world.

Fossil fuels are not going to be around forever. We need to develop an alternative fuel. The president’s proposal is an excellent one to get us moving in that direction.

The President needs to show some accomplishment for the next two years, either by winning the war in Iraq or by implementing some of his social agenda.

I believe it is more likely that he will be able to implement some these energy policies, if not all. Consequently, the country will benefit from these initiatives.

-- Abolghasem Shahbazi, professor and director, biological engineering program, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Design, N.C. A&T. (Professor Shahbazi's remarks reached us too late for today's paper.)

HEALTH CARE: The President made two major proposals related to health care reform in his State of the Union Address tonight. The first would change the taxation treatment of health insurance by providing a $15,000 deduction for families and $7,500 for single persons. This would replace the current tax deductibility of premiums for health insurance provided by employers and would make the value of the health insurance provided taxable (so that insurance worth more than $15,000/year would increase the taxes paid by families). Second, federal money currently paid to hospitals will be redirected to the states in the form of grants for insurance programs for the currently uninsured.

My bottom-line assessment is that these are small and largely ineffective proposals from a tired administration that has run out of ideas. There are some potentially beneficial aspects. For instance, individuals will be discouraged from obtaining certain types of overly generous insurance. However, they will not help with the two main problems with our health care system – the large number of uninsured individuals and high and rapidly increasing costs of medical care.

The idea of using tax incentives to increase insurance rates is an old one, but with little evidence that it will be effective. One big issue is that the biggest tax benefits go to those with highest tax rates, generally wealthy individuals who already have insurance. The uninsured tend to be less well-off and have lower tax rates. As a result, they gain less from the subsidy. Depending on the exact details of the program, it could have other undesirable effects. For instance, one interesting feature is that the tax deductibility applies for anyone with insurance, regardless of its cost. Unless carefully structured, this could result in incentives for the uninsured to obtain minimal amounts of insurance just for the tax breaks. In this case, they would still not be covered for most expenses and providers would still probably have to provide large amounts of uncompensated care. The proposal to redirect funds from hospitals to states is harder to evaluate but is likely to face fierce resistance. In any case, it probably would have only small effects.

The U.S. health care system is in need of big changes. Important issues that need to be addressed include the following: Should the government negotiate with pharmaceutical companies to reduce drug prices to the levels paid in other countries? Should the U.S. adopt a single-payer system? If not, how should we institute policies that will lead to universal insurance? How do we decide which kinds of medical treatments are worth the costs? Bold proposals could have been offered for these and other important issues, but the President has not done so in his State of the Union Address.

-- Christopher J. Ruhm, Jefferson-Pilot Excellence Professor of Economics, Bryan School of Business, UNCG

IMMIGRATION: There are two issues: 1) border security and 2) immigration reform. I have toured the U.S.-Mexico border with the U.S. Border Patrol on many occasions, from the Gulf to the Pacific. It is my belief that a fence, regardless of make or features, will not stem the tide of people illegally crossing into the U.S. People currently penetrate fenced and patrolled borders with impunity, day and night. They go under, over and through all our barriers. Do we need to retrofit the physical barriers? Yes. Is it the solution to stopping the surge of people? No! Will virtual fences work? No! As long as people believe there is opportunity in the U.S. they will come. And as long as the benefits of illegal immigration outweigh the punishment people will continue to come.

"If it ain't broke don't fix it!" Implement the current laws. There are many who feel that current laws offer adequate protections if they are followed. Some also feel that to change the rules to accommodate some penalizes those who abided by the law. Yet another guest worker program rewards illegal immigration.

People on both sides of the aisle don't seem to have the political will to do the correct thing. ...

The rapid growth in our prison population is evidence that we [also] take many working-age Americans out of the working pool. We tolerate this, preferring to spend on average $30,000/year to incarcerate and only $8,500/year to educate(estimates for North Carolina). This labor-pool gap has multiple dimensions. Immigrants, especially illegals, benefit from the disconfiguration of the American labor force. They will work for [less than] minimum wage. If, however, they begin to challenge working conditions and expect more from the American dream, they are replaced, e.g., southeast Asians are now being imported as farm workers in the Pacific states to replace Hispanics.

-- Dr. James Mayes, assistant professor of political science and criminal justice and director of the Criminal Justice Program, N.C. A&T.

* * *

One last thing: I'm not gonna name any N.C. congresswomen by name, but kissing a president on the mouth on live TV, even after the children are in bed, is just ... well, not the kind of thing that even the best reporter school in the world can prepare you for, and I really, really hope that's not what I actually saw. Just sayin'.

UPDATE: No, unfortunately, we now have independent confirmation that I saw it. Ew. I'm trying to decide whether the fact that the gentlewoman from Minnesota's mad preznit-clutching skillz apparently trump the preznit-clutching kung fu of the gentlewoman from North Carolina is cause for concern.

UPDATE: I apologize for the font and leading (space-between-lines) weirdness. Even after going through the code, I can't find what's causing it. I'm now going to start beating my computer with a large coffee mug to see if that h