I was first aware of a US request for Foreign teachers from a Chicago article. I found it alarming that Chicago would REQUEST foreign teachers by the hundreds to shape our young people's minds. First specialOps goes to Chine to train, now this...Here is the proof of this federal intention: the trial will begin with an innocuous "exchange program":

-----------------------------------------------

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&docid=00-985-filed

[Federal Register: January 14, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 10)] [Notices] [Page 2451-2453] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14ja00-111]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 3203]

Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Fulbright Teacher Exchange Program Orientation

AGENCY: Department of State. ACTION: Request for Proposals.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Office of Global Educational Programs of the United States Department of State's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs announces an open competition for an assistance award program. Public and private non-profit organizations, with a minimum of four years of experience in successfully administering orientation programs, and meeting the provisions described in IRS regulation 26 CFR 1.501(c) may apply to develop and administer August 2000 orientation activities in Washington DC for approximately 570 foreign and U.S. teachers and dependents participating in the Fulbright Teacher Exchange Program. The activities prepare participants in the program to teach (elementary, secondary, or college level) in the educational system of another country. The programming specifically strives: (a) To provide U.S. teachers with opportunities to meet face-to-face with their foreign exchange partners to discuss the details of their individual exchange assignments; (b) To provide participants with an understanding of the educational systems in which they will be teaching; and (c) To provide teachers with practical guidance on living in their countries of destination, with particular references to cross-cultural differences. The award in the FY-2000 competition will be approximately $260,000. Grants are subject to the availability of committed funds for Fiscal Year 2000.

Proposal

Overall grant making authority for this program is contained in the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, Public Law 87- 256, as amended, also known as the Fulbright-Hays Act. The purpose of the Act is ``to enable the Government of the United States to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries * * *; to strengthen the ties which unite us with other nations by demonstrating the educational and cultural interests, developments, and achievements of the people of the United States and other nations * * * and thus to assist in the development of friendly, sympathetic and peaceful relations between the United States and the other countries of the world.'' The funding authority for the program cited above is provided through the Fulbright-Hays Act. Programs and projects must conform to Bureau requirements and guidelines outlined in the Solicitation Package for this RFP. The Project Objectives, Goals, and Implementation (POGI), and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI), which contain additional guidelines, are included in the Solicitation Package. Proposals that do not follow RFP requirements and the guidelines appearing in the POGI and PSI may be excluded from consideration due to technical ineligibility. Announcement Title and Number: All communications with the Bureau concerning this RFP should refer to Fulbright Teacher Exchange Program Orientation and reference number ECA/A/S/X-00-03. Deadline for Proposals: All copies must be received at the Bureau of Educational & Cultural Affairs by 5 p.m. Washington, DC time on Friday, March 10, 2000. Faxed documents will not be accepted at any time, nor will documents postmarked March 10, 2000, but received at a later date. It is the responsibility of each applicant to ensure compliance with the deadline. Program Dates: Grant should begin on or about May 1, 2000 and run through April 30, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: United States Department of State, Bureau of Educational & Cultural Affairs, Office of Global Educational Programs, Fulbright Teacher Exchange Branch, State Annex 44, ECA/A/S/X, room 349, 301 4th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20547, telephone: (202) 619-4556, fax: (202) 401-1433 to request a Solicitation Package containing more detailed award criteria, required application forms, and standard guidelines for preparing proposals, including specific criteria for preparation of the proposal budget. Please specify Bureau Program Officer Dehab Ghebreab, (telephone: 202-619-4556; e-mail: dghebrea@usia.gov) on all inquiries and correspondence.

To Download a Solicitation Package via Internet

The entire Solicitation Package may be downloaded from the Bureau's web-site at http://e.usia.gov/education/rfps. Please read all information before downloading. Interested applicants should read the complete Federal Register announcement before sending inquiries or submitting proposals. Once the RFP deadline has passed, Bureau staff may not discuss this competition in any way with applicants until the Bureau proposal review process has been completed.

Submissions

Applicants must follow all instructions given in the Solicitation Package. The original and 10 copies of the application should be sent to: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Ref.: ECA/A/S/X-00-03, Program Management Staff, ECA/EX/PM, Room 336, 301 4th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20547.

Diversity Guidelines

Pursuant to the Bureau's authorizing legislation, programs must maintain a non-political character and should be balanced and representative of the

[[Page 2452]]

diversity of American political, social, and cultural life. ``Diversity'' should be interpreted in the broadest sense and encompass differences including, but not limited to ethnicity, race, gender, religion, geographic location, socio-economic status, and physical challenges. Applicants are strongly encouraged to adhere to the advancement of this principle both in program administration and in program content. Please refer to the review criteria under the ``Support for Diversity'' section for specific suggestions on incorporating diversity into the total proposal.

Year 2000 Compliance Requirement (Y2K Requirement)

The Year 2000 (Y2K) issue is a broad operational and accounting problem that could potentially prohibit organizations from processing information in accordance with Federal management and program specific requirements including data exchange with the Bureau. The inability to process information in accordance with Federal requirements could result in grantees being required to return funds that have not been accounted for properly. The Bureau therefore requires all organizations use Y2K compliant systems including hardware, software, and firmware. Systems must accurately process data and dates (calculating, comparing and sequencing) both before and after the beginning of the year 2000 and correctly adjust for leap years. Additional information addressing the Y2K issue may be found at the General Services Administration's Office of Information Technology web- site at http://www.itpolicy.gsa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Overview: August Orientation Workshop

Approximately 570 U.S. and foreign exchange teachers and their dependents from approximately 30 countries will attend an orientation workshop in Washington, DC, from Monday, July 31 to Friday, August 4, 2000. Names and numbers of participants will be provided in May/June after completion of the educator matching process. (There will be approximately 152 US teachers, 190 foreign teachers and 228 family members.) Participating countries arrange for non-U.S. teachers to arrive at the U.S. orientation site. Flights carrying non-U.S. teachers and their families should arrive on Monday, July 31, 2000 in the Washington, DC area. Arrangements should be made by the recipient institution for the U.S. teachers and their families to arrive at the orientation on Tuesday, August 1, which is a rest day for foreign teachers. (The recipient institution must require U.S. teachers to make their own travel arrangements to the orientation site, on a reimbursable basis). The workshop itself will take place August 2-3 for all participants. Departure will be scheduled for August 4. Purpose: The purpose of the August orientation workshop is to provide U.S. and foreign teachers and their spouses and dependents with a wide range of briefings, training, and discussions to assist them in preparing to function effectively in host schools and communities here and abroad in order to promote the mission of the Fulbright Program, mutual understanding. Partners meet face-to-face and share important information about their workplace and other particulars concerning their individual exchanges. The workshop should focus on the teachers' need to understand education in the host country, the professional and personal aspects of the exchange, and the many aspects of adjustment to living abroad, including cross-cultural orientation. The workshop should also address the anticipated needs and concerns of spouses and children so that they are able to optimally benefit from the exchange year abroad. Agenda: The agenda should recognize partner relationship building as a priority by scheduling joint sessions for U.S. and foreign partners in the morning, establishing training objectives for each session, and sequencing sessions to reinforce experiential learning. An equivalent of one day should be set aside for the US teachers and their families, as well as exchange partners and their families, to attend joint sessions and discuss their individual exchanges one-on-one. Sessions for U.S. and foreign teachers, some with their spouses, should include presentations on educational systems and cross-cultural matters. The POGI contains more specific information.

Additional Activities

In developing the program agenda, cooperating institution may wish to provide additional activities designed to strengthen teachers' and dependents' abilities to function in a foreign setting. Time constraints should be considered: sessions must not interfere with the partner joint sessions and (one-on-one) discussions. Possibilities might include sessions on cross-cultural communication and understanding, and visits to embassies, consulates, and cultural gatherings. It may also be possible to schedule sessions on August 1 when all foreign teachers are present and most U.S. teachers will have arrived by the afternoon.

Speakers

Cooperating institution is to identify and invite speakers and panelists to cover all sessions, but must demonstrate its ability and willingness to draw on its own resources to identify such individuals, as well as other resources beyond the organization. This includes universities in the area, consulting groups, embassy personnel or other experts. Speakers may include State Department's specialists, staff from foreign counterpart agencies, university faculty, international and intercultural specialists, foreign consular and embassy officials, former exchange teachers, foreign teachers, currently on exchange in the United States, U.S. administrators associated with the program and others. The Bureau must approve speaker/panelist selections. During the sessions set aside for administrative matters, Bureau staff will specifically designate State Department specialists and staff from foreign counterpart agencies to serve as resource people and speakers. The cooperating institution may also be asked to call on these people to assist with other orientation sessions. As much as possible, presenters should incorporate Fulbright specific situations, issues, and materials.

Services

In addition to developing the agenda and securing speakers, the cooperating institution will provide specific services in consultation with Bureau program officers. The POGI contains more specific information.

Web-Site

The institution will be expected to design a web-site to support easy access to information pertaining to the August orientation program. The web-site should be linked to the Bureau's and program agency's appropriate sites to help grantees access additional resources and information.

Reports

The institution will be expected to design and distribute an evaluation for the August orientation to be completed by the teachers. Such a form will cover program content, including meeting sessions, as well as logistical arrangements such as housing, food, and general meeting facilities. The form will be cleared by Bureau prior to its use. Participants' evaluations should be tabulated and sent to the Bureau no later than four weeks after the orientation.

[[Page 2453]]

The institution should also provide the Bureau with a substantive written analysis of the orientation, with recommendations for improving future orientations (no later than ten weeks after the orientation). The Bureau reserves the right to conduct an independent evaluation of the program. The institution is also required to provide a breakdown of actual cost figures for the orientation no later than ten weeks after the completion of the orientation. Special note: The cooperating institution will survey the literature of appropriate subject fields to determine materials of greatest potential value to teachers. If approved by the Bureau, recipient institution will purchase materials (up to $40 per teacher). The institution will also compile other materials as directed by the Bureau. These may include materials on U.S. education, including current trends and initiatives, materials on education in selected foreign countries, materials on cross-cultural adjustment and understanding, materials that provide guidance on living abroad, and other materials which the institution and the Bureau staff consider useful. The institution will provide these materials to U.S. and foreign exchange teachers at the orientation.

Note: The Bureau may also request that cooperating institution arrange additional orientation and/or training, or workshop briefings for program participants and administrators, resource people, and organizers during the award period. Cooperating institution may also be asked to provide programming and other services to the Bureau including, but not limited to, peer committee chairpersons workshops, predeparture orientation activities, foreign and U.S. teacher debriefings, materials purchase and distribution, and the development of new program information, including materials and videos.

Proposed Budget

Organizations must submit a comprehensive line-item budget based on the specific guidance in the Solicitation Package. There must be a summary budget as well as a break-down reflecting both the administrative budget and the program budget. For better understanding or further clarification, applicants may provide separate sub-budgets for each program component, phase, location, or activity in order to facilitate the Bureau decisions on funding. Administrative costs should be kept low; this will be an important factor in grant competition. Also, the ability to achieve cost-effectiveness within budget guidelines through cost-sharing will enhance competitive proposals. Please refer to the Solicitation Package for complete budget guidelines and formatting instructions.

Review Process

The Bureau will acknowledge receipt of all proposals and will review them for technical eligibility. Proposals will be deemed ineligible if they do not fully adhere to the guidelines stated herein and in the Solicitation Package. All eligible proposals will be reviewed by Bureau officers. Proposals may also be reviewed by the Office of the Legal Advisor or by other offices of the State Department. Funding decisions will be made at the discretion of the Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs. Final technical authority for assistance awards (grants or cooperative agreements) will reside with a contracts officer with competency for Bureau programs.

Review Criteria

State Department officers will use the criteria below to reach funding recommendations and decisions. Technically eligible applications will be competitively reviewed according to the criteria stated below. These criteria are not rank-ordered or weighted. 1. Quality and Clarity of Program Planning: Proposals should exhibit substance, precision, and relevance to Bureau mission. Detailed agenda and relevant work plan should demonstrate substantive undertakings and logistical capacity. Agenda and plan should adhere to the program overview and guidelines described above. Proposals should clearly demonstrate how the institution will meet the program's objectives and plan. 2. Support of Diversity: Proposals should demonstrate substantive support of the Bureau's policy on diversity by outlining relevant aspects of the institutional profile. Achievable and relevant features should be cited in both program administration and program content (orientation sessions, resource materials, and choice of resources). 3. Institutional Capacity and Record/Ability: Proposed personnel and institutional resources should be adequate and appropriate to achieve the program or project's goals. Proposals should demonstrate an institutional record of successful exchange programs, including responsible fiscal management and full compliance with all reporting requirements for past Bureau grants as determined by the State Department's Contracts office. The Bureau will consider the past performance of prior recipients and the demonstrated potential of new applicants. 4. Project Evaluation: Proposals should include a plan to evaluate the activities' success, both as the activities unfold and at the end of the program. A draft survey questionnaire or other technique plus description of a methodology to use to link outcomes to original project objectives are recommended. 5. Cost-effectiveness and Cost-sharing: The overhead and administrative components of the proposal, including salaries and honoraria, should be kept as low as possible. All other items should be necessary and appropriate. Proposals should maximize cost-sharing through other private sector support as well as institutional direct funding contributions.

Notice

The terms and conditions published in this RFP are binding and may not be modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information provided by the Bureau that contradicts published language will not be binding. Issuance of the RFP does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in accordance with the needs of the program and the availability of funds. Awards made will be subject to periodic reporting and evaluation requirements.

Notification

Final awards cannot be made until funds have been appropriated by Congress, allocated and committed through the internal Bureau procedures.

Dated: January 7, 2000. Evelyn S. Lieberman, Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. [FR Doc. 00-985 Filed 1-13-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-11-P

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000

Answers

Great post Hokie!This is exactly what we need in our schools!Just like another hole-in-the-head we need it!My only hope is that something will come along to wake up the american people before it is too late.Alas, the american people are not asleep but comatose and can't be woken up. thanks again Hokie, just a thought

-- just a thought (tigerpm@netscape.com), January 17, 2000.

If it were not run by the feds or the nea, it might result in some improvements.

At various USA universities in several technical fields, you may find many of the grad students are immigrants who can handle the heavy curricula better than many of the "honors" student of PS 123. A side effect is that many of the TAs that teach the undergrads are some of those immigrants.

It's not whence the teachers come that counts, it's what they do and don't teach.

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), January 17, 2000.

Jerry,

I agree that foreign grad students and faculty are a blessing to some university programs. Do you have children? The issue is the PROFOUND vulnerability of the young minds.

Wasn't it Hitler that conveyed the sentiment: Who cares what YOU think; I already OWN your children!

Be alarmed people. Be very alarmed.

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000.

I agree that foreign grad students and faculty are a blessing to some university programs. Do you have children? The issue is the PROFOUND vulnerability of the young minds.

Why would foreign teachers be a problem with younger children if they are not a problem at universities? In what way would they harm their "PROFOUND vulnerability?"

Wasn't it Hitler that conveyed the sentiment: Who cares what YOU think; I already OWN your children!

What does Hitler have to do with this?

-- (very@confused.here), January 17, 2000.

Uh okay. There are specific stages of development each child goes through. At different ages, they are susceptible to different styles of learning. Simply, at a very young age children lack the critical thinking ability to dismiss some ideas. They will accept what an adult tells them at face value, especially an authority figure such as a teacher.

Public education is important to the mental development of a child for many reasons, foremost of which it teaches a child how to function within a system. this used to be called "institutionalization".

The adoption of SOL's saddens many teachers I know personally, because it removes the sovereignty of their classroom. Simply, she must follow a national guideline daily, rather than respond to the unique needs and curiosities of her class. At Little Creek Middle School for instance, even a special education teacher with ADHD and borderline mentally retarded kids mixed together has to submit each day the specific questions she will present to her class for preapproval. Anyone who has an LD child knows how that approach cripples your opportunity to maximize an individual child's learning opportunity. This teacher's heart was broken because of this.

If you are able to entertain the possibility that the SOL undermines the learning opportunity of some students, then you are left with the question of what greater good is achieved.

SOL is a "warehousing" approach to education. It creates a profoundly different institutionalization process than what you or I experienced. Children are conditioned to perceive themselves in this system not as unique and beautiful for their strengths. Instead they are cattle. A shute opens, and either they make it through the shute with the rest of the herd, or they don't.

A young child does not have the emotional defences to respond in a healthy manner to that kind of system, and so manifests a host of social ills in the long term which I do not have the energy or inclination to explain.

A colorful analogy might be to look at a child's mind as a new hard drive. The teacher loads the OS which dictates how a child will perceive systems, and it's role in systems, for its lifetime. Systems being social such as employment, political, economical.

SOL does not nuture free thinkers, inventors, dancers, musicians...it creates robots trying to predict the national grade so they can achieve it. CONFORMISTS. The successful students are the ones who best conform to national standards. This teaches kids the value of conformity, and equates it with the very marrow of survival within a system.

College aged students are already conditioned well enough, and have developed adequate critical thinking skills, to not be shaped by such an experience.

Now, America's single, most profound identity trait as a culture, recognized by decades of social studies, if "individuality".

Combine the new institutionalization of SOL's with (authority figures in the school teachers) from socio-political systems which have mind set congruent with the values conveyed by SOL's, and you might see the tip of the iceburg of concern.

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000.

Sorry for the typos at the end, I got tired of thinking about this depressing situation.

Summary: This will create good little comrades.

Dictators know the value of shaping a child's mind.

It concerns me that you are not alarmed.

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000.

ANd NEXT you are going to say that AIFS and AFS are NWO organizations, because they arange for exchange students.

OH PLEASE!

-- jes a dumb ol footballer, I guess (nighttr@in.lane), January 17, 2000.

I have a cousin who teaches high school in south Chicago. She said it is so hard to find ANYBODY to teach the feral young dregs of the inner city school system there that they use homeless people in some of the classrooms as teachers aides to help the teachers of these overcrowded asylums keep some semblence of order.

-- High School Dropout (product@thepublic.schools), January 17, 2000.

Honestly, it sounds like a terrible job opportunity. Doesn't seem much different than the 1980's, when the UK was recruiting policemen in American universities.

(The UK was having a tough time finding enough people who wanted to be unarmed police in their own country, I guess. Can't imagine why).

Besides, how do you feel that foreign influence on our students would be any worse than our own government, which uses a little cartoon puppy to suggest things to small children like telling the police if their parents smoke marijuana?

-- High School Dropout (product@thepublic.schools), January 17, 2000.

Dropout, I don't deny the teaching shortage. I know many teachers who took early retirement, or outright quit, because of SOL's. There are MANY problems contributing to the shortage. Danger in the classroom is one reason as well.

These problems in education have been brewing...There have been numerous opportunities to implement effective interventions...Instead, the .gov lets the escalation explode until American citizens actually buy into the idea that potentially Chinese and Soviet teachers would "save us from ourselves". My God, look at us!

I remain outraged.

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000.

So what is your alternative plan? If we cannot guarantee even the safety of American teachers in their own workplace (a violation of OSHA regs, I am sure), how do you propose we keep them at all?

Besides, what makes you think that Soviet and Chinese immigrant teachers are pro-Communist?

-- High School Dropout (product@thepublic.schools), January 17, 2000.

LOL, I'm going shopping! I'll leave the "plan" to your ingenuity. What do YOU think might be a better plan?

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000.

I notice that some of what outrages you is that children will be taught conformity by these teachers. Are you under the impression that Americans are not already pressured into societal conforming now? Why do you think there are more types of advertising/marketing degrees offered at most colleges than computer/IS degrees? Conforming is what has made this country into the consumeristic, economic superpower it is today!

Could it be that what outrages you is not the "conformist" part of the equation, but rather that what the children might be asked to conform to would be outside your realm of comfort and understanding, or your particular individual desired issues/values?

-- High School Dropout (product@thepublic.schools), January 17, 2000.

I notice that some of what outrages you is that children will be taught conformity by these teachers. Are you under the impression that Americans are not already pressured into societal conforming now? 

No. I think you missed my point.

Why do you think there are more types of advertising/marketing degrees offered at most colleges than computer/IS degrees?

A better question might be Are there more adv/mktg degrees awarded annually in the US? If there are, then I would suspect it is because these programs are easier.

Conforming is what has made this country into the consumeristic, economic superpower it is today! 

Thats the stupidest comment Ive read today.

Could it be that what outrages you is not the "conformist" part of the equation, but rather that what the children might be asked to conform to would be outside your realm of comfort and understanding, or your particular individual desired issues/values? 

No.

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000.

Hokie,

Help me out here; to what does the abbreviation SOL refer in this context, and what does such SOL have to do with the possibility of immigrants as teachers?

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), January 17, 2000.

I'm not so sure the original posting is OT. I work in a state that utilizes the services of a disproportionate number of foreign nationals: in fact an EEOC audit was just conducted in our office by one such individual. Language nuance and cultural matrix are a big issue in this sort of environment. This is not to denigrate in any way the competency of these citizen newbies insofar as they may possess technical expertise (book-learning), but the fact remains that "quotas"could be filled by USA citizens of any race,sex or cultural origin who understand the environment in which they must perform and which they must evaluate: cf veterans: if these guys are good enough to run our nuclear systems, they're sure good enough for government hack work on any level-right? Ain't nothin' like a homeboy for workin' the 'hood. The cultural matrix is the issue here: a person from a radically different culture may not have the values that this society feels are relevant, or may not have the psychological and communication skills to convey them or feel secure enough in a new homeland to attempt to enforce them if they match ours . Foreign nationals operate under the pressure of "earning" the right to stay in what may be perceived as a highly desirable economic situation: translates into going along with whatever program....When this issue is considered in context, it's very serious indeed. The USA exported talent across the globe to assist in Y2K remediation efforts: this says something about our Y2K talent pool. We have the people we need to teach and work. Let's put them to work first, then recruit from outside. This observation applies across the board to all occupations. Time to bring charity back home folks, especially where our kids are concerned. This is known as self preservation in plain speaking circles. I got to get back to work, and I AM NOT USING GOVERNMENT EQUIPMENT OR TIME TO POST !!!!!

-- another state hack (keepwatching_2000@yahoo.com), January 17, 2000.

Hokie, I understand your concern. It does seem that we need to examine the "multi-cultural" emphasis which has invaded our government school system in recent years. Their readiness to import these teachers is connected to that it seems. Part of the multi- cultural emphasis seems to include teaching kids to love other cultures' ideas, religions, economic systems, history, etc. but to disdain our own. Our history books have been rewritten to exclude much of the beauty of our own history and culture. As to a solution....some of us in increasing number are turning to home education. We have chosen that option from the beginning for our eight children. I am in my 21st year in this adventure and continue to love every minute of it. Is it escapism? No...rather, we are preparing our children to serve others...3 of them are already out of college and engaged in teaching and supervising. This is just one suggestion of a solution. Interesting discussion for me as a lurker to this forum, and a discussion I felt I had something to offer from a fairly "professional" vantage pt. By the way, my husband and I are both college grads, and I have taught in the public speaking arena. We are a y2k prep family who continues to watch and wait before using our preps!

-- Jerri Faris (farisubah@aol.com), January 17, 2000.

Hokie, your first posting in the response section seems to pretty accurately describe the education I got growing up in the late Fifties and early Sixties. Only difference was in those days they made those of us who weren't Christians read Bible verses in class too.

Somehow it didn't take. Good thing, to my mind.

Some of my high school teachers were recent immigrants. It enriched our classes. I've lived for a year in another country, and exposure to those different values also enriched me incredibly.

I believe the average kid is spending as much time per year in front of the TV as they are at their academics. Guess which value system is going to win?

-- Firemouse (firemouse@fcmail.com), January 17, 2000.

When my daughter went to Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, her Chemistry class was taught most of the time by an oriental grad student. She couldn't even understand her, and eventually pretty much taught herself the class. She left after two years at Duquesne. Even though she received financial aid, the tuition was around $15,000/year and she was even living off campus. For that price, you'd think she would have had a teacher she could understand. My daughter was a high honor and gifted student in high school and so had the skills to teach herself.

Won't that be great when our schools bring in foreign teachers who have strong accents and our children have to try to figure out what they are saying. Even now, when I go to a doctor, if they are foreign and I cannot understand them, I will find a different doctor. My life and health are too important for miscommunication because I can't understand what the doctor is saying. And learning properly at a young age is really critical. Who are these braindead people who come up with all these ideas. I am an office manager and would have loved to have been a teacher, but I'm not going to work and go to school at night for 8 years in order to be one. If my country needs teachers so bad, rather than going overseas, why don't they make the opportunity available to their citizens first. I have paid taxes for many years to this government and never received any handouts. Why don't they pay for my education and subsidize some of my living costs for three years so that I can go full time. Actually, it would probably only take me two years full time. They won't give ME (a U.S. citizen) that opportunity, but they will probably bring someone over from another country, completely pay for their education, and probably give them living expenses and medical care on top of it!!!! Give me a break!

-- SingleMom (Healthy53@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000.

Single Mom, there are many opportunities for an American citizen to have their education subsidized today. Many community colleges have programs so that adult full-time workers can attend college full time convieniently, as well. You can start here for financial aid options, or contact your local college/university for more assistance.

-- High School Dropout (product@the_public.schools), January 17, 2000.

For those of you who find it so very hard to understand the decline in the American educative process, you need only to look at the people who are aware of the focus of the federal/state 'Education 2000 program' and it's focus on 'quota' and 'outcome based' education.

This process of education give you EXACTLY the type of problems we are now seeing in our educative process and the poor quality of education found in our children. What is the answer? Get rid of 'outcome based education' and go back to the old system that cranked out a vast preponderance of highly educated, motivated and learned children.

It is too simple, folks. Books to read and get yourself educated on the problem:

"The Dumbing Down of America" by Charlotte Iserbyt http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=22T5M WO5C7&mscssid=MQDUH7LPRVS12J39001PQUW8MNQS2VU5&srefer=&salesurl=Rwww.b arnesandnoble.com/&isbn=0966707109

"Dumbing Down Our Kids : Why American Children Feel Good About Themselves but Can't Read, Write, or Add" by Charles J. Sykes

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312148232/o/qid=948211617/sr=8 -7/104-4064756-7938020

"Dumbing Us Down : The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling" by John Taylor Gatto

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/086571231X/o/qid=948211617/sr=8 -8/104-4064756-7938020 "The Conspiracy of Ignorance: The Failure of American Public Schools" by Martin L. Gross

http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=22T5M WO5C7&mscssid=MQDUH7LPRVS12J39001PQUW8MNQS2VU5&srefer=&salesurl=Rshop. barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp&isbn=0060194588

T"he Cloning of the American Mind: Eradicating Morality through Education" by Beverly Eakman

http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=22T5M WO5C7&mscssid=MQDUH7LPRVS12J39001PQUW8MNQS2VU5&srefer=&salesurl=Rshop. barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp&isbn=1563841479

RealAudio radio programs to listen to:

Samuel Blumenfeld~

http://broadcast.com/shows/endoftheline/9810/end1026.ram

http://broadcast.com/shows/endoftheline/9907/end0707.ram

Charlotte Iserbyt~

http://play.rbn.com/?url=oneplace/oneplace/g2demand/Missler/station/mr 991208.smi&proto=rtsp

Beverly Eakman~

http://broadcast.com/shows/endoftheline/9910/end1004.ram

Martin Gross~

http://broadcast.com/shows/endoftheline/9909/end0923.ram

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), January 18, 2000.