Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

We Can't Afford a School Privatizer in Obama's Cabinet

By Alfie Kohn, The Nation. Posted December 15, 2008.


When Obama turns his attention to the Education Department, let's hope he picks a progressive.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Are the "New Atheists" As Bad as Christian Fundamentalists?
Frank Schaeffer

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
How a Public Jobs Program Could Put America Back on Track
Julianne Malveaux

DrugReporter:
Pot Is More Mainstream Than Ever, So Why Is Legalization Still Taboo?
Steven Wishnia

Environment:
Why We Need Bees and More People Becoming Organic Beekeepers
Makenna Goodman

Food:
The Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America's Emerging Battle Over Food Rights
Makenna Goodman

Health and Wellness:
New York May Stop Heartless Health Insurers from Dropping Coverage When It Stops Being Profitable
William Ehart

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Michelle and Barack's Marriage Has in Common with 56 Million Other Ones
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Alfie Kohn

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

If we taught babies to talk as most skills are taught in school, they would memorize lists of sounds in a predetermined order and practice them alone in a closet. -- Linda Darling-Hammond Progressives are in short supply on the president-elect's list of cabinet nominees. When he turns his attention to the Education Department, what are the chances he'll choose someone who is educationally progressive?

In fact, just such a person is said to be in the running and, perhaps for that very reason, has been singled out for scorn in Washington Post and Chicago Tribune editorials, a New York Times column by David Brooks and a New Republic article, all published almost simultaneously this month. The thrust of the articles, using eerily similar language, is that we must reject the "forces of the status quo" which are "allied with the teachers' unions" and choose someone who represents "serious education reform."

To decode how that last word is being used here, recall its meaning in the context of welfare (under Clinton) or environmental laws (under Reagan and Bush). For Republicans education "reform" typically includes support for vouchers and other forms of privatization. But groups with names like Democrats for Education Reform -- along with many mainstream publications -- are disconcertingly allied with conservatives in just about every other respect. To be a school "reformer" is to support:

  • heavy reliance on fill-in-the-bubble standardized tests to evaluate students and schools, generally in place of more authentic forms of assessment;

  • the imposition of prescriptive, top-down teaching stand-ards and curriculum mandates;

  • disproportionate emphasis on rote learning -- memorizing facts and practicing skills -- particularly for poor kids;

  • behaviorist model of motivation in which rewards (notably money) and punishments are used on teachers and students to compel compliance or raise test scores;

  • corporate sensibility and an economic rationale for schooling, the point being to prepare children to "compete" as future employees; and

  • charter schools, many run by for-profit companies.

Notice that these features are already pervasive, which means "reform" actually signals more of the same -- or, perhaps, intensification of the status quo with variations like one-size-fits-allnationalcurriculum standards or longer school days (or years). Almost never questioned, meanwhile, are the core elements of traditional schooling, such as lectures, worksheets, quizzes, grades, homework, punitive discipline and competition. That would require real reform, which of course is off the table.

Sadly, all but one of the people reportedly being considered for Education secretary are reformers only in this Orwellian sense of the word. The exception is Linda Darling-Hammond, a former teacher, expert on teacher quality and professor of education at Stanford. The favored contenders include assorted governors and two corporate-style school chiefs: Arne Duncan, whose all-too-apt title is "chief executive officer" of Chicago Public Schools, and his counterpart in New York City, former CEO and high-powered lawyer Joel Klein.

Duncan, a basketball buddy of Obama's, has been called a "budding hero in the education business" by Bush's former Education secretary, Rod Paige. Just as the test-crazy nightmare of Paige's Houston served as a national model (when it should have been a cautionary tale) in 2001, so Duncan would bring to Washington an agenda based on Renaissance 2010, which Chicago education activist Michael Klonsky describes as a blend of "more standardized testing, closing neighborhood schools, militarization, and the privatization of school management."

Duncan's philosophy is shared by Klein, who is despised by educators and parents in his district perhaps more than any superintendent in the nation [see Lynnell Hancock, "School's Out," July 9, 2007]. In a survey of 62,000 New York City teachers this past summer, roughly 80 percent disapproved of his approach. Indeed, talk of his candidacy has prompted three separate anti-Klein petitions that rapidly collected thousands of signatures. One, at StopJoelKlein.org, describes his administration as "a public relations exercise camouflaging the systematic elimination of parental involvement; an obsessively test-driven culture; a growing atmosphere of fear, disillusionment, and intimidation experienced by professionals; and a flagrant manipulation of school data." (The only petition I know of to promote an Education secretary candidate is one for Darling-Hammond.www.petitiononline.com/DHammond/petition.html

Duncan and Klein pride themselves on new programs that pay students for higher grades or scores. Both champion the practice of forcing low-scoring students to repeat a grade -- a strategy that research overwhelmingly finds counterproductive. Coincidentally, Darling-Hammond wrote in 2001 about just such campaigns against "social promotion" in New York and Chicago, pointing out that politicians keep trotting out the same failed get-tough strategies "with no sense of irony or institutional memory." In that same essay, she also showed how earlier experiments with high-stakes testing have mostly served to increase the dropout rate.

Duncan and Klein, along with virulently antiprogressive DC schools chancellor Michelle Rhee, are celebrated by politicians and pundits. Darling-Hammond, meanwhile, tends to be the choice of people who understand how children learn. Consider her wry comment that introduces this article: it's impossible to imagine a comparable insight coming from any of the spreadsheet-oriented, pump-up-the-scores "reformers" (or, for that matter, from any previous Education secretary). Darling-Hammond knows how all the talk of "rigor" and "raising the bar" has produced sterile, scripted curriculums that have been imposed disproportionately on children of color. Her viewpoint is that of an educator, not a corporate manager. Imagine -- an educator running the Education Department.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: education, school, reform

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Dont forget Jeb Bush
Posted by: corey on Dec 15, 2008 2:48 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to not allow privatization of anything because fundamentlist Christians and the Religious Right want to take over whatever than can, get tax-cuts and tax-exempts.

Do not underestimate fundamentalism.

How do you think Christianity because so "popular?

It wasnt because a bunch of simple men roamed the earth and spoke about being nice to your neighbor...quite the opposite!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The Case for Separation Posted by: KeLe
Walking, Talking and Reading
Posted by: MKaggen on Dec 15, 2008 3:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The quote by Linda Darling-Hammond is telling. Young children learn to walk and talk because we human beings have been walking and talking for many thousands of years and our brains are hardwired to learn through example. Put any normal child in human company and they will master walking and talking on their own. Reading and writing, as linguist Noam Chomsky tells us, are relatively recent human endeavors and require explicit instruction. Here lies the crux of the whole language vs. traditional phoneme-based instructional conflict.
It is ironic that the left tends to champion balanced literacy, which is the new face of the old whole language approach, and constructivist math. To fail to give children the keys to literacy-- phonics, spelling, grammar-- is to forever cut them off from participation in the world, just as to fail to teach children traditional algorithms to perform basic math functions forever cuts them off from algebra and higher math. We in New York are producing generations of children who, though they may pass the tests, cannot read or do long division..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Progressive Educational Methods are the PROBLEM
Posted by: rickiey on Dec 15, 2008 5:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This subject is near and dear to me, because I am an educational expert. By profession, I create schools, curriculums and courses that do not fail (because if they failed, I would lose my livelihood). My wife is a teacher, and I have children in the school system, and when I see what schoools are doing (don't blame the teachers, their hands are tied) that are ineffective, I recognize it and it upsets me.

First and foremost, she is right with respect to privatization. We can't afford it.

But with respect to teaching methods, she is way off.

1. The most effective teaching method for reading is the phonetic approach. The whole language approach has been a dismal failure, because it is a flawed approach to teaching. The whole language approach does not provide a method for a child to learn new words by reading, other than context. The entire concept, on its surface, is just silly: "We will teach them all the words, as words, so that they know them". That is moronic, there is too many words. They need a way to learn written words as they go.

2. Arithmetic, must, must, must, must, must, be taught using (OMG, he's gonna say it, somebody faint) rote memorization. Yes, really. Once the concept of basic addition is established, all the way up to times tables, math needs to be rote memorization. Because when arithmetic turns to math, a child being able to calculate 8 X 7 doesn't help, they have to KNOW it.

3. Learning Focused Strategies. Ever heard of it? Your kids teachers have. It is the program, that school districts have been paying millions of dollars (per district, mind you) per year for, even though it is merely a repackaging of a program they already had (that was also an abysmal failure). And do you know what it does? It mandates that every unit of instruction should end with a culminating art project instead of a test. To hell with displaying knowledge of the history and culture of South America via essay questions, your child should be evaluated on how well they can hand draw the flag or state seal of Argentina. Sure, they'll be able to recognize Argentina's flag when they see it, but they won't recognize Peru's (another child will have been assigned Peru). LFS is trying to raise a generation of marketers; all appearance, no substance.

4. I'm certainly not defending NCLB because that is also an abysmal failure. Because the progressive teaching methods have stopped, well, teaching from occurring, any time NOT spent on focusing on art projects is spent "practicing for ____" (fill in your state's standardized test here). Quite frankly, it is counterproductive, even though the administrators don't recognize it. If the students spent less time focusing on test-taking strategies and more time learning the actual information, the test scores would INCREASE. But administration is so focused on the test and it's results, that they are shooting themselves in the foot.

And don't get me started on the unfunded mandates and their affects on teacher salaries....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Benefits of rote memorization Posted by: bingahaba
gg
Posted by: yarn on Dec 15, 2008 5:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a misuse of the term "progressive." One of the most progressive (and, apparently, effective) things in education today is Teach for America, an organization that Ms Darling-Hammond has steadfastly opposed, perhaps because of her sympathy with unions. (Unions are good and needed, but their objectives aren't synonymous with those of the whole system.) Her gradualism is not likely to bring the big changes we need. What we need is a secy of education who is a real progressive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

we need school privitization
Posted by: zooeyhall on Dec 15, 2008 6:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think a little privitization of the public school system would be a good thing. I live in Nebraska, where I am a farmer, and one of the most burdensome things I have to pay is property (real estate) taxes--80% of which goes to the local school. I am paying almost $9000 on my modest farm of 160 acres, and my house is just a modest ranch style home built in 1970.

And with the well-known, well-documented, and long term decline of rural populations we now have only half the kids in my local school then we did 20 years ago. Yet they still have the same number of teachers, the same number of support personel, and the same number of administrators. Now I ask, what private business would still keep the same number of personel if they had half the customers then before?

The school is largely kept open by a powerful local lobby of teachers whose husbands also farm in the local area. Within 20 miles radius of where I live, there are 5 towns and none has a population of over 600. Yet there are still five high schools and five grade schools in that area.

And I can see why they fight any change in this cushy system. The public school teachers in my area are paid head-and-shoulders more then any other job you can get in these little rural communities. Plus awesome benefits and retirement plans, that are only a dream to people who work at other places in my area.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» My spelling stands corrected Posted by: zooeyhall
Shut down the department of education
Posted by: Elise on Dec 15, 2008 6:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why not just dismantle the dept. of education? Turn education back over to the states where it belongs

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I agree. Posted by: tjg1984
» I disagree Posted by: wolfgangmo
State-based Curriculum
Posted by: oekosjoe on Dec 15, 2008 6:59 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
State's rights in school programs only work when you in Nebraska spell "dog" with a "u" or add 2 + 2 to be anything different from what we call "4" in Massachusetts. As long as a young adult in Iowa competes with a young adult in Singapore, I'd want our kids to know more than their kids. Even in Iowa.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Most people who want private control of education...
Posted by: tjg1984 on Dec 15, 2008 7:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
are not in favor of "top-down teaching standards and curriculum mandates," nor do they necessarily support rote memorization, testing, etc. They are parents who do not want government bureaucrats deciding what is best for their children, and possibly children who have had the chance to compare public school with private school or homeschooling.

For many of us, education reform means stopping federal mandates like NCLB, and possibly getting rid of the Department of Education (or re-integrating with HHS to re-establish a unified Health, Education, and Welfare department with fewer employees and less power over education).

Another fun fact: many people who want to see more private education are opposed to voucher schemes. These would probably fail to decrease spending, give governments more control over private schools, and would still involve significant taxation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PUBLIC EDUCATION CAN BE OUTSTANDING
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Dec 15, 2008 8:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Private schooling should always be a choice. Public schools should be held to very high standards. There are too many acceptable reasons why both students and teachers fail. We do very little about it. We need a system for evaluating teachers and if their work is below an acceptable level they should be fired. Unions are fine, but tenure is job security that doesn't exist in any other profession. Parents are not teachers. It's that simple. Children only go around once and there can be no catch-up. Only when we improve the teachers will be be able to improve the students. When that happens, we will still have private schools, but not because they're a necessity. We have to elevate schools to learning facilities from the expensive baby sitting that they are now. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

public school costs are crazy
Posted by: billwald on Dec 15, 2008 8:45 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Washington State subsidizes every student $4,400/year. The Seattle Times claims that Seattle gets $10,000/student from all sources. The claimed average class size in Seattle is 21 kids. That's $210,000 per class. According to www.salary.com median teacher pay is $50,000.

In the bad old days most businesses calculated their shop rate at twice the average worker pay, the rest going to benefits, other costs, and profits. Maybe these days it is 3 times. Seattle is billing for a classroom is over 4 times the teacher's pay. Where goeth the profit on the teacher?

Why are the big 3 auto makers losing money? Because it costs them more to manufacturing and sales cost is less than the sales price of the cars. If the fixed cost per car is more than the sales price then they can't cut losses by increasing production, right?

Shouldn't the same analysis apply to public schools? If they are defacto losing money on every student . . . if the state subsidy (sales price) doesn't cover the unit cost per student (manufacturing cost) then school owners (local tax payers) lose money on every student. How can the public schools claim that losing students "costs" them money? Losing students should SAVE money by cutting losses.

Further, I believe that in Washington State, the state pays the school half the subsidy for every "registered" home schooled kid. In other words, the school district gets paid for NOT providing a service on the theory that the parents could request their children be enrolled at classes of their choice.

In other words, if EVERY student in the Seattle school district became home schooled, the district would still get $2,200 per child for not teaching them. If there were 21 kids in a class, that's $46,200 per class for not teaching the kids. The district could pay the teachers 50% stand by pay for not teaching. The teacher could have his $25K, find a real job and the school board would still have $21,200/classroom for overhead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hahahaha
Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals on Dec 15, 2008 8:53 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know your fav Libs were Pvt Educated!
what is the Ivy League becuase it damm sure an't state school. You wan't me and my elk to go to public school however were did you go to school? Were are you sending your kids to school?
Do as I say and not as I do much?

in all seriousness
How about you just teach the kids something instead of pushing them threw the system. 2+2= 4 at a upper west side pvt school and at PS 22

I want you to try the "public" school system for a few years then call me

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Haven't we learned about the "free-market/private sector"...
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Dec 15, 2008 9:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Okay enough is enough! I am so sick and tired of hearing about "privatizing" public education! First off - teachers are constrained -large class sizes, teaching to tests, not enough materials, etc! Second, kids going to school today come with a lot more baggage that the teachers are forced to deal with (hunger, ADD, bad home environments, etc.)! Both schools and teachers need to be modernized with up-dated equipment, computers in classrooms, smaller class sizes, art and music need to be re-instated into school curriculm, and phonics need to be re-introduced! Whomever the brain-child was that thought "whole word recognition" was a wunder-kind is an idiot! What happens when the kid gets a word they haven't seen before - at least they used to be able to phonetically sound out the word, whole word recognition doesn't allow for the attempt! Which is probably why at least half of this nation can't read and don't read anything once they finish school, it isn't fun, they don't understand for comprehension what they have read!

Haven't we as a nation learned about the "free-markets" and "privitization", yet? Look at the mess of the banks, the auto industry, that we are currently paying for! The basic skills, reading, writing, arithmetic, are needed to help the individual prepare for life long skills! George W. Bush is a prime example of people that don't have a clue, and aren't curious enough about anything to learn yet, this idiot is in charge of this nation - and look at the results WAKE UP PEOPLE! I think that it's high time that we stop pretending and buying into the notion that if something is done for profit - it will necessarily be soooooo much better! What will make it better: how about real standards, accountability, rules, regulations, parents doing their part by turning off the tv and being a real parent! How about we stop teaching to tests, and while we're at it, how about increasing teacher pay! Let us stop the insanity before it starts!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Insanity in schools
Posted by: LeeAnnG on Dec 15, 2008 12:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I work for a school system in West Virginia which is installing a county-wide software based lock system run from a central location.

Each person who needs access to a school must have a plastic card in order to unlock the doors. The school principal decides when doors are to be unlocked to let students come and go. The rest of the time, the entire school is in lockdown. All doors are locked and can only be entered with the card or by being "buzzed in" by someone in the school office. Each door has a camera so the office person can see who is at the door.

In addition, of course, the system allows the principals in all schools to keep tabs on teachers and other employees as to when they come and go. So if any employee or even a principal needs to go out to smoke a cigarette, the central administration knows when it happened. Whether or not you approve of smoking, this seems rather Orwellian. The activities of employees can now be monitored as never before.

This system, which is paid for by a grant from federal homeland security, is quite sophisticated. It enables the principal to decide if a person's card will work all day every day or if it's restricted to certain hours. Most of the principals want their teachers to have access to the school 24/7, but the central administration is not happy about that and wants more restrictions. Big brother is alive and well in America!

If this were a big city, maybe it would be different, but there have been no incidents with dubious characters in the 22 years I've been working here. The doors on all the schools have been locked during the day for years except for one main entrance, and there are now cameras in the schools. One small high school has about 22 cameras! To my knowledge, there's never been any kind of trouble in this school.

I know this is a bit off subject, but it's a commentary on how absurd our fascination with security has become. This morning I asked my boss (head of the county school system's MIS department in charge of maintaining the programs) if he finds this to be as horrid as I do. He concurred but said it was too bad that our society has come to the point where it's necessary. I then asked him if he really thinks schools are more dangerous here in Wood County than Allentown schools were even 40 years ago when I went there.

Apparently, he never considered that or noticed that crime is down nearly everywhere. This is an extremely low crime area. A child is hundreds of times more likely to be killed or hurt in a car accident on the way to school, to get cancer, or get killed in a hunting accident than he or she is to be hurt by a stranger entering the school.

The citizens of this state would be absolutely outraged if someone suggested they shouldn't take their 10 year old hunting, but there will be little notice made of the prison-like conditions in the schools - even if both situations are justified by safety concerns.

I am retiring within the next year, and I've never been happier about the prospect than I am today. Dress codes, lockdowns, closed lunches, and restrictions on behavior of all kinds have become so oppressive, I am sorry to be a part of it.

Fearmongering is big, big, big business in this country. I've never been in favor of privatizing schools, and I've always thought that we spend too little, not too much, on education. If we can spend around $5,000 a second in Iraq, we surely have the money to educate our citizens. But this kind of expenditure does nothing to help, and it creates an ugly atmosphere that can't possibly be conducive to learning.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Insanity in schools Posted by: georgiaorwell
» RE: Insanity in schools Posted by: LeeAnnG
We Need Individually Centered Education
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Dec 15, 2008 1:05 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until we learn to focus on the needs of the individual, education will be a joke.

Some students are quicker learners than others, in a normal class their abilities will be held back.

Other students are slower learners than others, in a normal class they will fall behind.


Furthermore different people learn more effectively in different ways.

Many students could learn through online courses and course material negating the need for full-time teachers and classrooms and the associated costs.

As the system is, I would not send my kids to public school.


Nevermind the questionable ethics of taking tax money from people who are not raising children to pay for the education of other people's children. Or as others have pointed out, taking tax money from parents for public schools when they are home schooling or sending their kids to private school.


Look at the results of the Milgram experiments, humanity has some serious psychological issues and the education system does not even try to address them or fix them.
*A majority of the people can be fooled every time, through the use of fear, into supporting whatever damned policy the people in charge want whether its war or bailouts or something else.
*A large majority of the population refuses to think critically and acknowledge to themselves that there is zero proof of God.
*A definite majority of people continue to support the illegality of drugs and putting non-violent offenders who are only potentially hurting themselves into jail.
*A significant majority of this country and moreso whites than others continue to choose to ritually mutilate their infant sons through circumcision.


How can a democratically created education system possibly be any good considering the clear and obvious failings of our species?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Could we apply logic?
Posted by: Life of Illusion on Dec 15, 2008 1:57 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If there is honest interest in fixing our education system, we should look at what works, and what fails.
Bush, ect. have shown throwing money at a problem doesn't fix it. Increases in spending have shown almost no increases in test scores.
But we have had successes. Charter schools and privates out preform public schools. 20/20 had a show that reported public schools improved when a private opened nearby. If you are interested in math, look up "Mike's Math".

A large part of the problem relates to the children. No child left behind does not work. You cannot teach a kid who does not want to learn. Blame it on ADD, home life, whatever, there is an increasing percentage of kids who demand an unfair amount of the teachers time. That shortchanges the rest of the class. To me, the only answer to this is to make it the parents problem, and hold them accountable for their child's behavior and effort.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HOMESCHOOL
Posted by: froggeymonkey on Dec 15, 2008 7:45 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My children have been in public school, charter school, and finally homeschool. If I had it to do all over again, they would never ever be turned over to the government for their education.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Public schools are done
Posted by: Bicyclebarron on Dec 15, 2008 7:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush killed them when he ran us into outrageous debt and broke all of the state governments along the way. Get the Obama crew to cut the defense budget in half and maybe it could be used to do something useful such as funding education and health care but I doubt that is going to happen. Time to face facts there is no money not at any level of government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whistling in the Dark
Posted by: talkville on Dec 16, 2008 12:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ex post facto.

Beginning with his very first appointments and signalling an un-embarrassed and un-apologetic tendency of the 'vision' towards that sector, it is becoming abundantly clearer by the day that this next Administration will include precisely all those Privatizers who have been present at the Economic (and Political!) helm since those halcyon days of Reagan/Thatcher and the "Washington Consensus" and ..... .... well, lo and behold!: "The Chicago School". Free Market, Free Trading, Free-Wheeling privatization of anything and everything (up to and including the human body and its processes) that Is or Moves, in every Space and in every Time.

Breathing itself is an Exchange. And once it can be transformed and encircled into the Commodity Form, it too will be Privatized.

Look for the expansion, not contraction of Private Schools, the only difference being Subsidy as we descend on the status scale from Ruler to Ruled. And this will guide, as always, the ranges of Thinking, of Doing, of Having, of Owing and of Obeying.

Workingmen: start organizing and arranging your own auto-didactic and collaborative activities yourselves. There's no help coming from 'above', and what you learn in those schools will only be servitude and its styles, forms and manners.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Read John Taylor Gatto
Posted by: georgiaorwell on Dec 16, 2008 12:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gatto's Underground History of Public Education explains it all extremely well. Education should be massively reformed, but it won't be.

The first thing I would do would be to dismantle the ETS (Educational Testing Service) with its stupid SAT, GRE, LSAT, GMAT, etc. tests. Higher education needs to dump all these tests as they really don't mean anything whatsoever about predicting success in schools.

It's unbelievable - this country charges its students 100 times what other western countries charge for higher education, yet they make it almost impossible to get into their schools unless you hit a certain score, which is totally arbitrary. For this, you get to take out all these outrageous loans and be in debt for the rest of your life. Can you then really say that you learned much - anything - in school. Not many do, ya know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement