You are now eligible for transfer to another newspaper since The Herald-Leader is now subject to corrective action under the "No Newspapers Left Behind Act" (NNLBA ) due to the fact that the paper's editorials have been identified as persistently misdirected and nonsensical (not to mention illogical and overly vitriolic--especially when Larry Dale Keeling writes them).
We regret to add, however, that the choice provisions under the NNLBA limit your choice of new publishing employers only to other liberal newspapers that are basically indistinguishable from the one you are now working for, meaning that, even if you exercised your right of choice under this Act, you will still be subject to the same droning "Diversity" Newspeak, and possibly even worse coffee in the break room.
Oh, and your cubicles won't be any bigger either.
We realize that some Herald-Leader employees will wonder how their newspaper came under corrective action under the NNLBA guidelines. Of course, the evidence for the lack of editorial proficiency is produced on a daily basis. But the proximate cause for official sanctions came in last Friday's editorial arguing that because so few parents took advantage of the close to meaningless choice provisions in the No Child Left Behind Act, that therefore school choice policies are ineffective.
Of course, the No Child Left Behind Act's choice provisions only allow for the transfer of students from one failing public school to another that is not failing quite as badly. Here was the language that caught the attention of NNLBA investigators:
In Fayette County, of the 6,100 students who were eligible to transfer this year, 173 students took advantage of the opportunity.The No Child Left Behind Act's provisions constitute choice in the same way as elections in communist countries were supposed to be "free": you could choose among a number of candidates--all of whom happened to be running as communists.
All this suggests that choice is falling short as a force for improving education.
Real school choice plans, of course, allow students to have real options which include private schools. The relevance of what happens when you limit people's choice to only public schools to what happens when you allow them real choice is what really caused the NNLBA to bring closer scrutiny to bear on the paper.
And then there was this gem, which, we'll admit, caused widespread laughter and not a few guffaws among the staff of the NNLBA's investigative team:
School-choice advocates would argue that the way to create true competition is to give families monetary vouchers with which to enroll their children in private schools. But how likely is it that an area that has never produced strong public schools will produce strong private schools? Not very.We had, of course, to rub our collective eyes and read it again, just to make sure we were reading it correctly.
The fact that places which have poor public schools commonly have quite good private schools is about as well-established as ... as ... well, as the Herald-Leader's editorial shortcomings. Private schools in Lexington are not bad, and those in Jefferson County, where, with the exception of a few magnet schools, public schools are pretty sorry, are excellent.
To use the hopelessness evident within the public school system as an argument against giving parents hope not only violates the provisions of the No Newspapers Left Behind Act (Section 113 A, subsection 5, provision 12--under the section on Stupid Editorial Tricks), it's just not very convincing.
Those of you wishing to take advantage of the choice provisions of the No Newspapers Left Behind Act, such as they are, should simply leave your keys in your desk. If you are an editorial writer wishing to take advantage of these provisions, we would encourage you to consult an occupational mobility professional.
Which is just our cordial bureaucratic shorthand for saying: do the rest of us a favor and hang it up.