Our local school district is having serious problems: A pathetic voter turnout of barely 25% (among other things) resulted in the school budget being voted down. By state law, the school board has to implement an austerity budget which calls for the discontinuation of extracurricular activities including all sports, music, theater, art…everything, really.
So local groups have been cropping up that are attempting to develop fund-raising activities to cover the difference. Well, tonight a meeting had been called at the local high school of a group that was seeking to raise money specifically to cover music, theater and art. Kath had gone to previous meetings dedicated to saving sports, and I was hoping she would go to this one as well. But she didn’t feel up to it and so, against my better judgment, I went.
Well, with key members of the school board as well as local politicians up on the stage, and a fairly decent turn-out of parents, there was lots of talk about things parents could do to raise money, and students could do to raise money, and more things parents could do and more things students could do, and how absolutely everyone had to pull together for the kids.
Then they started taking questions.
Ten, fifteen, maybe twenty questions are asked in relative silence as the people on the stage fielded them.
And then I raised my hand. And they brought the mike to me, and I said, “I can’t help but think that what we’ve basically got here is a business that’s in trouble. A business that we–the consumers–are being asked to help shore up. And what occurs to me is that in the corporate world, on some occasions when a business is in trouble, the management–which is you–approaches the various unions in their employ and ask them to pitch in to see them through difficult economic times. Everyone contributes to the greater good. So what I’m wondering is–following that business model–has anyone here approached any of the unions and asked for roll backs or give backs in the spirit of everyone pitching to help the students?”
And suddenly the place was alive with thunderous applause and shouts of “Yes! Yeah!” And the organizing guy starts telling me why this is a terrible idea, and the superintendent of schools is telling me why this is a terrible idea, and the head of the local teachers union, HE’S explaining why it’s a terrible idea…
Understand, I think teachers are underpaid. When one of my kids was in kindergarten, I came in to lecture about making comics. After 40 minutes I felt like I’d been running a marathon, and when I staggered home, I was convinced that however much they were paying teachers, it wasn’t enough.
Nevertheless, from a business-model point of view, it seemed a reasonable question. Instead it touched off a small shitstorm of hostility from the parents and defensiveness from the school people.
So when I got home, I said to Kath, “From now on, YOU go to these kinds of meetings. At least YOU don’t nearly start riots.”
PAD
• 
Vouchers strike me the same way that private accounts instead of social security do: an election buzz word that sounds good, but once you look at what it really does, you see that it doesn’t really fix the problem at all. It really just does the same thing the system you’re looking to replace does, just moves the money around in a different way.
I had a buddy harp on both these topics, yet he could never explain why they were any better than what we have today. So, we give some money back to the parents so they can offset the cost os sending their kid to a “better” school? That’ll do nothing if the kid doesn’t have a desire to learn in the first place. And if we stuff that better school with a whole bunch of new kids, the quality of service that school is going to be able to provide will drop…while the school the kid used to be in now has a lot fewer students, and may see an improvement in performance. So, vouchers are likely to have the opposite effect they are touted as having.
Now, giving parents that support their kids’ education at home a tax break for the things they do, that might be a decent use of a tax incentive to energize education.
Den wrote:
“One is that there are generally a limited number of slots in the ‘good’ public and private schools into which students from the ‘bad’ schools can transfer, meaning only a select few will actually get elevated out.”
I’ll believe this at the same time I believe that there’s a limited amount of wealth in the world and that Bill Gates’ hoarding it is the reason I’m poor.
Say that you’re in a district with two schools, Alpha Academy and Beta Boarding School. Alpha is a lousy school, and Beta’s great. Beta fills up quickly, leaving 150 students who would love to have the opportunity to leave Alpha stuck there… in your scenario.
Here’s what I think would happen, based on observations about how capitalism works: Seeing the fact that there’s money to be made, someone will open a third school, Charlie’s College Prep, which will serve those who would prefer not to be in Alpha but didn’t make it into Beta. (Or Beta would expand as its administrators see the opportunity for more money.)
Den wrote:
“And if you think the kid who can’t read but has a great jump shot won’t get in ahead of the science whizkid, then perhaps you’d be interested in buying some beachfront property in Kansas.”
Maybe I’m being idealistic and I just think too highly of my fellow human beings, but I think that what would actually happen is that we’d see two (or more) schools appear. One school that caters specifically to the scientific whizkids and one that doesn’t.
The voucher system (in theory) should provide for better specialization, which tends to lead to the creation of more wealth. Is it perfect? No. As you point out, it could lead to the fragmentation of communities (as Charlie’s College Prep and Beta Boarding School and the re-structured Alpha Athletics quickly build up a rivalry), but I think that it’s a good deal better than our current system.
Even assuming all of your assessments are right, I don’t see how “We’ll help some of you out, and the rest of you are screwed” is worse than “Screw you all!”
I had to laugh at one of Bobb’s posts above. Reminded me of a Microsoft Word class the insurance company I worked for before I woke up and went into TV made me take. See, all of we marketing directors were supposed to be getting PCs, so the powers that be thought it’d be a good idea if we, y’know, knew how to use them. So, I told Angela, our company vice president, A) I shouldn’t be in the class because I could probably TEACH it, and B)Don’t waste the money on the teacher because, well, see A. But the people over her were gung ho for us to take the class. So, we all sat in the boardroom laptops before us, blank Word docs open. Teacher’s going through the basic functions, all the while I’m typing a note to my-then fiancee with a lovely rose watermark behind it. Teacher’s walking around the class, sees my screen, and says to me, “Wow, I didn’t know you could do that.” Not to say that there are school teachers that don’t know what they’re teaching, but I personally know three teachers of different levels that can’t do basic math. (IE, when cooking a 20 pound turkey for twenty minutes a pound, writing the number 20 20 times on paper and crossing it off every twenty minutes.) Granted, none are math teachers, but still….!
Bobb,
I totally agree that teachers have lost far to much of the ability to excercise control and enforce discipline in the classroom. Nothing gets an unruly kid’s attention in class so much as a rap on the knuckles with a ruler (assault and bettery suit). Or giving a kid a failing grade (can’t do that, will damage the frail esteem of the developing child).
While I can’t ever picture myself doing the rap-on-the-knuckles thing, I can testify that poor grades (meaning D’s and F’s) DO still happen, at least in my neck of the woods. I’ve given a few — and the administrators are generally fine with it so long as I can back it up (which I can).
Again, it’s at least partially a question of making sure the parents are on board. I’m starting to think the old maxim about voting, “if you don’t vote you don’t get to bìŧçh about the outcome,” should be applied here. Any parent who’s not involved with and supportive of his/her kids’ education (and by “supportive of”, I mean communicating with the teachers and willing to find a way to work with them if needed) does not get to complain if little Jeffy doesn’t do well.
This is another basic idea that maybe it’s time to dismiss as outdated? Who says every kid needs the same education? How far do we want to take our standard education requirements?
I think that’s a very valid point, and one worth pursuing. Not every kid needs a “college-prep” education — and even those who do don’t need one of the one-size-fits-all variety.
I think a certain amount of the four core subjects (English, history, math, science) should be required for all in terms of creating literate citizens, but there’s certainly no need to have everyone taking a really involved curriculum.
I also think vocational schools are more worthwhile than they’re often rated to be (though I’ll admit I’m working w/o much evidence here), and would like to see them recognized.
Maybe this sounds harsh, but I think we need to put real requirements on school admissions and progressions. If a kid fails to attain the required score, they don’t advance. If they don’t demonstrate basic skills, they can’t be admitted (we would have to set up some alternative access to education…like a skill based vocational program).
Works by me, at least in theory. The devil, of course, will be in the details.
TWL
Amazingly, I’ve actually done some research on this issue (my organization was looking at what’s involved in charter schools). The thing that struck me in my research is that the current basic model of education was created right after WWII, when the big push was to crank out engineers, scientists, and mathematicians in the ramp-up to the Cold War. The basic philosophy was that about one-third of all public school students would go into engineering and other hard sciences and be wildly successful as they helped the “Stick it to the Commies” effort, another third would go into the soft sciences and do all kinds of interesting things that weren’t nearly as important, and the remaining third would pretty much be failures and not amount to much at all.
Despite my own opinions about the increasingly heterogenous make-up of the country, we have to acknowledge that a grand, one-size-fits-all federal policy is most likely not going to fix the education system. The needs of my small hometown’s public school system with one high school of ~450 students are vastly different then the needs of my current home near St. Louis, with about 12 high schools of 1,000 or so kids each (and that’s just St. Louis City; there’s dozens more high schools in the surrounding suburbs). I think establishing federal standards and funding in terms of what should be taught at what grade level so there’s some uniform expectation about what students are learning is vital, but decisions on how to implement the educational process need to occur closer to the schools where kids are learning, so local factors and economies of scale can be taken into account.
But alas, there’s so much tied into defining where uniform educational standards end and implementation how-to begins, isn’t there? For example, why in the world are textbooks and everything else that schools use to teach (except for software, because Microsoft and others are fighting to get their product into as many classrooms as possible) so freaking expensive? What if the federal government decided that a particular textbook met every educational standard for that class and grade level and ordered it in bulk? Wouldn’t we save a lot of money? But, wait, isn’t picking out a particular textbook making a decision on how to implement that course? And of course, I’m not even going to get into what happens when one state picks the pro-science biology textbook and another state picks the cleverly-disquised-&-hoping-no-one’s-paying-attention-Intelligent-Design biology textbook?
And then you’ve got too many who think it’s peachy that the government provides free daycare service nine months out of the year (and thank goodness the YMCA offers all those summer camps to keep them out of my hair during the summer), as long as nobody tries to tell them how to raise their child, who they spend maybe two hours with each day. Yes, there are still many parents out there who take an interest in their child’s education, but we’ve got to do something to reach out to these “buddy-buddy” parents who are not doing their children any favors by not challenging them.
But maybe the key is that the education is just one key system in a larger one with many problems. When fixing a school, you have to look at the surrounding community and see what ails it as well. The pefect solution for a troubled school district won’t amount to much if the community doesn’t have the heart and financial health to support it.
Wow, how’s all that for a whole lot of talk offering no solutions but plenty of questions and self-contradicting ideas?
And yes, of course I’m a product of the public school system 🙂
Robin,
After considering it, I think you’re right that it’s a facet of the same problem, but I wonder why there isn’t feedback? Is it just a matter of parents who don’t care, or is it that they don’t feel their input matters?
That I don’t know — but I also don’t think “having input” equates to “give them vouchers.” As I’ve said, if you want to take a voucher idea and apply it solely within the public-school system, then I’m at least cautiously willing to give it a whirl … but somehow that doesn’t seem to fit anyone’s pre-established agenda.
The voucher system, in my opinion, provides a very good way of holding schools accountable. If my (hypothetical) son’s been in a school for a year and I don’t see that he’s making progress (individual interaction with him day after day does qualify me to make that decision in a way that a government agency looking at a test score cannot), then I’m going to take my son out of that school in favor of another one. It might be that particular school just doesn’t suit my kid very well, but it suits plenty of other kids just fine. In that case, the school will prosper, and my son, having been placed in a different school that’s more fitting for his personality and/or abilities, will prosper as well.
You don’t need vouchers to do what you’ve described — just the willingness of the system to accommodate that flexibility. I’m all in favor of that, assuming that the parent (you, in this hypothetical case) can provide some data backing up their claim and don’t just leave because they feel like it.
Tim again:
“And schools not funded in this way … what? Die off?”
Unless they fix their school to meet the needs of the students and their parents, yes. Just like any business that doesn’t meet its customers needs.
Schools. Are. Not. Businesses. Nor. Should. They. Be.
You can talk about a “business model” all you want, but the bottom line is that businesses run on profit, and schools don’t. You can’t dismiss the problem so easily with “well, that’s how it works in business…”
If a school’s ability to make money
[wheet]
Schools are not for-profit institutions. That’s why the “teachers will make more argument” dries up, or at least part of the reason.
I’m convinced that there are large numbers of students who would be better off in some sort of apprentice-ship type program than in the kind of formal schooling that we currently provide.
Now there we can agree. (My brother’s one of those people, in fact.)
TWL
Robin,
Den wrote:
“One is that there are generally a limited number of slots in the ‘good’ public and private schools into which students from the ‘bad’ schools can transfer, meaning only a select few will actually get elevated out.”
I’ll believe this at the same time I believe that there’s a limited amount of wealth in the world and that Bill Gates’ hoarding it is the reason I’m poor.
Finite amount of wealth, no. Finite amount of spots in schools can be fixed as you describe.
Finite amount of good, dedicated teachers — not fixable under your system, unless you’re proposing a massive teacher-training system first and can provide enough incentives that lots of people who might not be otherwise inclined are going to accept it.
TWL
>Posted by Will “Scifantasy” Frank at August 9, >2005 11:19 PM
>For myself, I side with Aaron Sorkin (in the >voice of Sam Seaborn): “[E]ducation is the >silver bullet. Education is everything. We don’t >need little changes. We need gigantic monumental >changes. Schools should be palaces. The >competition for the best teachers should be >fierce. They should be making six-figure >salaries.
>School should be incredibly expensive for >government and absolutely free of charge to its >citizens, just like national defense. That’s my >position. I just haven’t figured out how to do >it yet.”
Yeah I remember that episode.
Also from same episdoe
SAM’s response to simply asking Congress for more
money
Public education has been a public policy disaster for 40 years. Having spent
around four trillion dollars on public schools since 1965, the result has been a steady
and inexorable decline in every measurable standard of student performance, to say
nothing of health and safety. But don’t worry about it, because the U.S. House of
Representatives is on the case. I feel better already.
SAM
It occurs to me Mallory, that you attended a private primary school, a private high
school and a private college.
MALLORY
What’s your point?
SAM
Well, just that liberals have no problem with rich kids going to expensive private
schools, that doesn’t undermine public education. And liberals have no problem with
middle-class kids going to parochial schools, that doesn’t undermine public education.
MALLORY
Hang on!
SAM
The idea that letting poor public school students choose private alternatives would
destroy public education is simply contrary to our experience. Boston Latin, the oldest
public school in America, is still the best secondary school in New England.
Hey, that’s nifty about Boston Latin. Um, why haven’t we replicated that across the entire country? Won’t something like that work in Carmi, IL, with a town population of 5,800, a fall festival called “Corn Day” (I kid you not), and a Super Wal-Mart?
If the original post was meant in sarcasm, then just consider this one a sarcastic pre-buttal to those who might defend it.
Tim, I totally agree that a big part of the problem is lack of engagement on the behalf of parents. As Jason put it, public schooling is becoming like tax-funded daycare.
I also Jason’s research interesting. If the current model we use for education had a built-in failure rate of 30%, where does that leave NCLB? Or more importantly, you can see why NCLB fails as a program, because 30% of the population in the system is expected to fail. Yet here comes NCLB, forcing schools to pass a good portion of that 30% failure group, which means more resources directed at that 30% failure, than the 60% group that should be going on to do good things for society.
Howard, don’t pull that crap on me. You got this from the same place I pulled it (I mean that literally–http://communicationsoffice.tripod.com), and if you’ve been paying attention you know the very next line is “They aren’t all Boston Latin and Bronx Science,” and that the argument was mostly false because Sam doesn’t believe that. Opposition prep, remember?
Jason, I don’t think the original was sarcasm, scarily enough.
Howard, don’t pull that crap on me. You got this from the same place I pulled it (I mean that literally–http://communicationsoffice.tripod.com), and if you’ve been paying attention you know the very next line is “They aren’t all Boston Latin and Bronx Science,” and that the argument was mostly false because Sam doesn’t believe that. Opposition prep, remember?
Jason, I don’t think the original was sarcasm, scarily enough.
Howard, don’t pull that crap on me. You got this from the same place I pulled it (I mean that literally–http://communicationsoffice.tripod.com), and if you’ve been paying attention you know the very next line is “They aren’t all Boston Latin and Bronx Science,” and that the argument was mostly false because Sam doesn’t believe that. Opposition prep, remember?
Jason, I don’t think the original was sarcasm, scarily enough.
Tim wrote:
“Schools. Are. Not. Businesses. Nor. Should. They. Be.”
Why not?
You say that the reason that vouchers (as I envision them, which may not match up to any existing proposal) won’t work is because schools aren’t for profit, and again, I say, “Why not?”
If you have reason to believe that treating schools as a for-profit business (which would encourage them to streamline management and provide a good “product”) won’t improve the education system in this nation, I’d be happy to discuss that, but I’m at a loss to explain how “for-profit” is somehow a bad thing.
>Posted by Will “Scifantasy” Frank at August 10, 2005 03:05 PM
>Howard, don’t pull that crap on me. You got this >from the same place I pulled it (I mean that >literally–http://communicationsoffice.tripod.com), >and if you’ve been paying attention you know the >very next line is “They aren’t all Boston Latin >and Bronx Science,” and that the argument was >mostly false because Sam doesn’t believe that. >Opposition prep, remember?
You are absolutely wrong.
I got it from http://www.twiztv.com/scripts/westwing
Opposition prep arguements were still
good arguements and they weren’t really countered.
BTW, have you seen
Season 5 Episode 15 “Full Disclosure”?
Democratic Mayor of DC argues in favor of vouchers.
Note: That episode wasn’t written by Sorkin.
Will..the point is there are two sides to each argument…and Sam’s pie-in-the-sky “I wish the world was perfect” isn’t the answer anymore than Sam’s mean ol conservative one is.
As for PAD at PTA…I half expected Eric Larson to run in when PAD raised his hand…that seems to happen in these “PAD raises his hand to open his mouth” columns.
Ok, sometimes I shouldn’t just pull stuff from memory. Bobb, the idea about the roots of our current educational model I mentioned partially come from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation website at:
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Education/default
I must point out that the foundation’s educational push is for more charter schools, so there’s definitely an agenda to promote smaller, more specialized schools. I just checked the site to see if I could find specific works about the theory, and I feel it necessary to point out that the model actually came from the 1920’s, and the third/third/third divisions were more professions/trades/failure. The model that seemed to evolve out of that around 50 years ago was actually more of a factory structure, with what one article said was a predicted 50% fail rate, though that seems kinda high to me. Either way, the foundations of education in this country are not based on “individual enlightenment” and/or “intellectual citizenry” ideals by any means.
As someone who works in social services, business models only go so far in any governmental/public organization. Strict financial and programmatic controls, accountability, performance measures, and merit-based employment are strong concepts to apply to the educational system, but please don’t talk about profit margins. Improved financial self-sufficiency, sure, but we can’t ask the education system to turn a profit anymore than we can ask the EPA or the highway department to do the same.
Tim wrote:
“Finite amount of good, dedicated teachers — not fixable under your system, unless you’re proposing a massive teacher-training system first and can provide enough incentives that lots of people who might not be otherwise inclined are going to accept it.”
Treat schools as a business, and in order to get better teachers (and thus provide a better product, get more students/customers and as a result, make more money), they’ll come up with incentives.
I don’t really deny that there’s a finite number of good teachers out there (since there’s a finite number of people on Earth, I have no choice but to conclude there is a finite number of good teachers), but I don’t think we’d face a teaching crisis, either.
I think that the most effective schools would develop a good, flexible system that would allow them to use the teachers that we have now more effectively. There would also be schools that managed to reach out to some professionals in other fields who happen to have the talent for reaching out to younger people or for explaining things in a way that others find easier to understand.
These things are, of course, possible under the current school system, but I think they’d be easier if we encouraged direct competition between schools (and vouchers are, in my opinion, the best way to do that).
A quote from Strangers With Candy seems apropos:
“Numbers don’t lie. This school just isn’t turning a profit.”
“But it’s a public school.”
“So’s a privately-held corporation, and _they_ make money.”
Jason wrote:
“As someone who works in social services, business models only go so far in any governmental/public organization. Strict financial and programmatic controls, accountability, performance measures, and merit-based employment are strong concepts to apply to the educational system, but please don’t talk about profit margins. Improved financial self-sufficiency, sure, but we can’t ask the education system to turn a profit anymore than we can ask the EPA or the highway department to do the same. “
Well, I’m not exactly proposing that we demand that the education system turn a profit, but that we take the money we’re currently spending and allow parents to manage it for their children’s benefit by choosing the school that gets their child’s share. If both school A and school B can better serve the students that public school C currently serves, and they turn a profit in doing so (without costing the parents any more than public school C would’ve been), then I don’t see how school B’s headmaster’s motive (to make a buck) hurts anything.
You say that the reason that vouchers (as I envision them, which may not match up to any existing proposal) won’t work is because schools aren’t for profit, and again, I say, “Why not?”
You know, this is a flip a coin thing, for me.
On one hand, I say we don’t want schools to end like corporations, where people lie, cheat, and steal their way to the top.
On the other hand, that IS the real world, and for all the talk about high school preparing you for it, they’re full of šhìŧ, because high school doesn’t prepare you for anything.
I mean, I took a college-prep course in high school, and then the teachers bìŧçhëd about students using cliff-notes for books we were supposed to read. So much for the “college” part of prep. 🙂
But, yeah, cheat in high school? Bad.
Cook the accounting books for the big executives? Well, if you get away with it, you’ll probably get a nice bonus.
And on a very disturbing and sad note:
“After months of debate over science and religion, the Kansas Board of Education has tentatively approved new state science standards that weaken the role evolution plays in teaching about the origin of life.”
Article here.
“If you have reason to believe that treating schools as a for-profit business (which would encourage them to streamline management and provide a good “product”) won’t improve the education system in this nation, I’d be happy to discuss that, but I’m at a loss to explain how “for-profit” is somehow a bad thing.”
Robin S., I’d say it’s not the model that causes the probelms, it’s the measuring standards. In a for-profit business, you’ve got one really good indicator of success or failure: the bottom line. A for-profit business makes something: a good, a service, something. Butter. Guns. Schmoos. Whatever. It provides something that people pay money to consume, and generates financial profits for investors on top of operating expenses. The more profit it makes, the better it does, the more people want to invest. But simply put, a for-profit business has an objective indicator of success: profit.
What’s your standard of success measurement for a school? Graduation rate? Salary after graduation? Attendance? Performance on a standardized test? Each of these is fraught with subjective inputs.
Those that fail to graduate high school can still get a GED at some point. And just getting your diploma doesn’t guarantee success anywhere else…just as there are people that never graduate high school that go on to be successful in many different fields.
Salary after graduation? Do you count all those that go on to college, and have zero, or a negative, income? Do you include those that don’t get a job until after college, and do you discount at all for the value of the college education?
Performance on standardized tests? This is maybe close to an objective standard, but what about those brilliant people that test poorly? Or those that face cultural/language challenges based on the format of the test?
And even if you could achieve an objective standard, how do you value it? A for profit company that pays a 200% return on investment is performing better than one that pays 2%. But if the 200% equals only $100, while the 2% return equals $2 million, the second may be seen as the “better” investment. So, how do you value the output results of a for-profit model school?
It’s well and good to talk about running a school off the for-profit model, but talking and doing are worlds apart.
I’ll believe this at the same time I believe that there’s a limited amount of wealth in the world and that Bill Gates’ hoarding it is the reason I’m poor.
Well, then believe it, Robnn, because that’s exactly the conclusions drawn when vouchers were explored here in Pennsylvania.
Maybe I’m being idealistic and I just think too highly of my fellow human beings, but I think that what would actually happen is that we’d see two (or more) schools appear. One school that caters specifically to the scientific whizkids and one that doesn’t.
That was what we were told when the created charter schools in PA. Instead, they created a bunch of schools that didn’t do anything better than the regular public schools except waste money. They’ve been really good at doing that.
Having been a teacher’s aid for a brief time, I have a high level of respect for teachers. I think they are the most important people we have on the face of this earth. Where would we be without our education? Whether you have just a high school level education (or less) or a college level education, look at that and exaime yourself. IF we didn’t have teachers, none of us would be writing here. We’d all be out in the streets as savages.
So we owe our teachers alot. So they should, imo, be paid at least as much as doctors (certaily more then lawyers. lol).
As for school funding, forget sports imo. I think sports have been teachering kids the wrong lessons anyway. They are all about winning and less about fun (like they should be). So just forget them. Kids can play them on their own if they want to.
But arts, thearter, and music are very important. These are important parts of our culture and kids NEED to know about them. They need to be apart of that, imo. I think that most of the great human accompisments come from arts, thearter, and music (real music. which we hear far too little of these days).
So, just as its important that teachers get paid more, its also important that we save these programs.
And I agree with Peter. Teachers should help out with that. I’m not saying they should take a paycut, but they should help with the fundraising if they can and talk to the kids about how important those programs are.
When we start cuting back in the education of kids, then we start cuting back at our future.
DF2506
” Thats how I feel about the space program too. We need to focus on that much more too. I think NASA should be given all the funding them need so that they can finally get to Mars, other planets and really start the exploration of the universe. If we don’t grow and learn, then what’s the point of being alive? “
If you have reason to believe that treating schools as a for-profit business (which would encourage them to streamline management and provide a good “product”) won’t improve the education system in this nation, I’d be happy to discuss that, but I’m at a loss to explain how “for-profit” is somehow a bad thing.
Simply put: Edison, one of the biggest for-profit school companies has had control of the Chester-Upland School District for over ten years and they have failed to improve test scores.
The problem with the “for-profit is best” meme is that it’s based on ideology and faith rather than the real world.
Isn’t that what conservatives usually say about liberals? Funny, ain’t it?
Robin,
You say that the reason that vouchers (as I envision them, which may not match up to any existing proposal) won’t work is because schools aren’t for profit, and again, I say, “Why not?”
If you have reason to believe that treating schools as a for-profit business (which would encourage them to streamline management and provide a good “product”) won’t improve the education system in this nation, I’d be happy to discuss that, but I’m at a loss to explain how “for-profit” is somehow a bad thing.
Others have already given responses similar to mine, but here goes:
1) As Bobb said, there’s no good “bottom line” you can use to quantify what’s going on.
2) I think the evidence is very strong that an unrestrained, unregulated appeal to the profit motive tends to create a lot more Enrons than anyone in the corporate world cares to admit. You think there’s waste NOW, wait until Wal-Mart buys out the schools and takes away teachers’ health insurance. That would certainly up the schools’ profits, but it in no way creates a superior “product.”
The public education system is a societal problem — it’s not one that’s going to be fixed by simply worshiping the almighty invisible hand of the marketplace, no matter how much so many conservatives seem to think that solves every problem under the sun.
I’ll ask you again, since you seem to ignore it every time I bring it up — would you be fine with using the “vouchers” idea but applying it solely within the public school system? That seems to have a reasonable chance of creating the streamlining and competition you’re so confident is the answer, yet you don’t seem to be leaping at that particular opportunity. Why not?
TWL
Ok, I have to say something about the remark about sports teaching the wrong things. Competitive sports, like any other educational opportunity, when done correctly teach many, many valuable life lessons: competitive drive, fair play, being a good winner, being a better loser, team work in team sports, self-reliance and worth in individual sports, etc. The idea that it’s somehow bad for kids to compete against each other and that learning to compete is not a necessary part of learning to live in our society is plain wrong. I didn’t even really like sports when I was in school (had an assistant football coach that contributed to my heat stroke and leaving the team my junior year), but even the small amount I did participate gave me a heads-up about certain things in the real world. And sports are the only things that kids compete in while in school, yet they get picked on the most for it. Spelling Bees, Knowledge Bowls, Debate Team, Chess Club, Art Competitions, that Kiwanis/Rotary Club/Daughters of the American Revolution Essay every freaking year, and more are all examples of kids showcasing their innate strengths and working hard to compete. It amazes me that people will bemoan our educational system for falling behind and being uncompetitive compared to other countries and then complain that kids shouldn’t compete for anything because of self-esteem, all in the same breath. True self-esteem comes from a sense of earned self-worth, at least in the real world. Hiding kids from the idea that they need to work hard, that just feeling good about themselves is not enough, is part of the problem we’re talking about when our students can’t be bothered to learn even the basics because their parents will bìŧçh and moan until they get the grade they want.
Oops; the above should have read that sports are NOT the only thing that kids compete in in school…
Tim, why do you suppose that so many parents, if given vouchers, would head to the private schools? I know you are correct, I just wonder why.
My own guess is that the private schools have an advantage–they can kick out any disruptive students without penalty or much risk and easily replace them. Meanwhile, I have kids walking the hallways yelling obscenities and nobody can do a thing because they are special ed (and their “exceptionality”, I might add, is not Tourettes. They are just playing the system.)
Then again, say we do kick out the malcontents. What happens then? They walk the streets, looking for trouble.
And further, if public schools could easily toss out students you just KNOW that some of them would be suspending low achievers just to raise their overall standardized test grades.
For those advocating merit pay I need to know how it would be done. Here’s my situation: we have 4 levels of biology, as an example. Basic bio is the easiest, it has kids who have failed the class before, those with a limited grasp of English, kids who hate science or have struggled in the past, special ed kids, and a few who should have taken one of the higher levels but for some reason did not. CP Bio is college prep; harder textbook, more homework, more independent work, Honors Bio is very high level, almost a college level course, mush tougher book and projects. AP Bio is a college level class and earns you college credit. Hard as hëll.
Now all of them take a final exam that is made up by the state (The AP class has its own test). If my basic kids average a 70 on the test and the CP kids average an 80 and the Honors kids average a 90 on the test, which teacher deserves merit pay? The one who taught the highest level kids and got high level scores? The one who taught the lowest achievers? Who did the best job? The only way to make it fair is to have all the classes randomly picked and everyone take the exact same course. I think I can state with no bit of fear that I’ll be proven wrong that such an approach would result in virtually ALL of the basic and many of the CP level kids being left behind or, alternatively, most of the honors and some of the CP kids being bored out of their skulls and getting very much less of an education that they should.
Countries that make education a priority, by requiring actual, meaningful tests to advance, and that don’t glorify the athlete at the expense of the scholar, are passing us by leaps and bounds these days. Countries that had rice as their biggest product 30 years ago are now close to creating nuclear devices, while the US…
Let’s keep in mind though that many countries only educate the very top level kids…basically, their “public” school is a lot more like our private schools. When you are determined to give EVERY child an education you will inevitably run into certain challenges.
Who says every kid needs the same education? How far do we want to take our standard education requirements? As a lawyer, I clearly need skills in writing, logic, reason, other communication, deduction, etc. I don’t really need calculus, a ton of science, really broad history knowledge. Yet, I’m required to get a lot of that stuff. We’re teaching our kids a lot of stuff they don’t need, want, or can even use.
Bobb, this is an idea I struggle with. There’s a lot of merit to it. At the very least we should look toward more vocational opportunities in the high school. It’s true that not EVRYONE needs to go to college…and yet I’ve known so many who blossomed in college after just taking up space in high school…I hate to think of kids making life decisions at such an early age that will hold them back for life…but again, there’s a lot of good points in what you say.
Not from what I understand. Indian parents are so focused on education that they send their kids to private school, but the public schools are so good that people beg to come in. So, the private schools aren’t BAD, but the public schools are really, really good. I should have made that clearer.
I recently saw a news program showing how girls in India were not getting an education while their brothers were…I don’t know if this is something that is commonplace or limited to one region (India is a big place). I suspect that the realities for those in the cities are very very different than that experienced by the rural population.
While I can’t ever picture myself doing the rap-on-the-knuckles thing, I can testify that poor grades (meaning D’s and F’s) DO still happen, at least in my neck of the woods. I’ve given a few — and the administrators are generally fine with it so long as I can back it up (which I can).
I can state that at least 15-20% of my students, on average, fail. I’ll admit that the majority of thise are not always academic failures–too many absences, suspended for fighting, that sort of thing, but I have no fear of giving an F. I’m a freaking pussycat, you get an F with me and you have richly earned it.
The thing that struck me in my research is that the current basic model of education was created right after WWII, when the big push was to crank out engineers, scientists, and mathematicians in the ramp-up to the Cold War.
Hmmm, interesting. I agree that there is way too much emphasis on advanced math (But I don’t enjoy math so take that with a grain of salt). I see no reason for most kids to take chem and physics (both are great subjects but require a certain ability in higher level thinking).
Obviously, every kid should be able to read and write (though we should recognize creative writing as the talent that it is. Not everyone can do it well.). Obviously they need to have a good knowledge of essential biology and environmental science (again, my bias reveals itself).
science standards that weaken the role evolution plays in teaching about the origin of life.
Evolution has little or nothing to do with the origin of life. Two different subjects.
o we owe our teachers alot. So they should, imo, be paid at least as much as doctors
No. Thanks, you are a wonderful person, but no. I was married to a doctor. There’s no comparison.
As for school funding, forget sports imo.
I’m going to have to disagree here as well. I know it is popular for us to bash the athletic department but the truth is that a lot of my kids would not be there if it were not for sports. That’s a dumb reason to go to school but kids are, to various degrees, dumb. I’ve used sports to get better effort and behavior from my kids as well–telling Coach Pegram that Tyrone Firefly is acting up in class will often solve the problem–something involving repeated laps around the football field. They can’t play if they fail classes so there are some who give an extra effort right there. And there is a level of discipline that sports gives them that can be used in all aspects of life.
Also, it is the one thing that gets parents involved. Is that right? No but welcome to Reality 101. Prerequisite: life.
Now there are schools where sports is the only thing and obviously the tail is wagging the dog there.
Best. Thread. Ever.
I still haven’t seen a real explanation for where my four trillion went! 🙂
Serously though, as “investors” in the school system, or just as responsible people, parents have a right to question where the money is going.
Second, as a recent inmate of a public school, I can tell you Bill, when it came to sports, not only did the tail wag the dog, it was the whole dámņ dog! There is also a trend to see this same emphasis on sports elsewhere. And with this emphasis, comes a tendancy to look down on real acheivers, people who do well in class, or who work hard at something besides sports. I tell ya, it ain’t fun being the one reading Peter David and Harlan Ellison in a world where most people are struggling to read the captions in “Playboy.”
My question has always been, why is there no longer an emphasis on actual classroom acheivement? I mean, sure the Cold war mindset did result in leaving some students behind, but isn’t there some middle ground, where we still focus on education, and manage to convey the message that this whole “larnin'” thing isn’t bad?
Bill, Tim, you guys are teachers. tell me, where did your school’s share of that four trillion go? And do you think that schools overemphasize non-academic stuff too much? I mean, I only know about one school, you guys know about at least two.
As for school vouchers, I tend to be a little ambivalent about their use. Sure, you can save some kids, but how do you decide who? Academic merit? but since kids who come from better financial backgrounds tend to do better, you would run a chance of giving them to the people who need it least. Financial status? then what about all the kids who are doing better? dont they deserve a fair squeeze? The idea of saving as many as possible is laudable, and to his credit, Bush is doing the best he can, but there is no way that you can save them all. So do you save some? How do you choose who to save?
If you can give me a real, fair way of judging who gets school vouchers, but just handing them out is a bad idea.
1Well, as someone that had neither children or other vested interest in public schools, I still have an unsupported opinion or two… 😎
First, on measuring results. I think that the measurement should be whether the parent is happy with the results (whether it is education, behavior, college prep, test scores, SATs or football ranking…) If I, as a parent, can have a real, actual choice as to where my child can go, ‘I’ can pick the criteria of choice. If this means that this is where my voucher goes, then great! (as a side note: I don’t have kids, but pay $1000 every year in taxes for schools. Wouldn’t it be interesting if I could choose WHICH school got my funding…)
But, the problem is, this would KILL the administrators, advisors, consultants, admins, etc. who have NOTHING to do with teaching, and everything in DIVIDING UP THE LOOT! The real problem with the school budgets are not the teacher’s salaries, or even the upkeep on the schools, it is the cost of all the administrators and beaurocrats that get their cut in between the budget and the schools. Unfortunately, all these other parasites are ALSO in the teacher’s union, usually in the positions of power, and it is their phony bologna jobs that the classroom cuts are there to protect.
My fantasy? Eliminate state and federal education boards. Let the state ADVISE, but keep ALL THE MONEY at the local level. Allow EVERY TAXPAYER the right to choose which school his taxes funds. Let every parent choose ANY school he wishes for his children.
Also, reduce the present certification requirements for teaching to either a certificate that takes no more than 6 months to achieve, and/or let it be waived by at least 2 years of experience in the field of interest. If a person can’t teach, a certification won’t help him. If he can, and has real world experience, don’t punish him by requiring him to spend a year of his life getting non-sense classes just so he can volunteer to make a lot less money for the common good.
If schools were businesses, I would be allowed– required!– to throw back any defective parts they send me.
Try something as simple as building a house, if every piece of lumber is supplied by a different family, with no standardization. Some of the boards are warped, some cut wrong, some are termite ridden, underfed, etc. Sometimes you get a great piece of wood that doesn’t require much shaping by the carpenter; then the problem is keep that board from being compromised by the corruption around it. Oh, and the house doesn’t have to have a firm foundation, because we’re more interested in the football stadium anyway.
As a teacher, the students are the raw material that come into my workshop. I can’t waste time complaining that today’s students aren’t the best material. I have to teach whoever– whatever!– walks in that door.
Wake me when advocates of the business model start to understand this. The market can’t solve everything, capitalism is not appropriate for every human endeavor. More money would be nice, but I’d trade it for kids who are encouraged to read at home and a society that gives academic teachers more juice than athletic directors .
Cultures put their resources, including their best and brightest, into whatever they think is most important. For a while, churches and cathedrals dominate the landscape; then the palaces of government, courthouses and legislatures. Nowadays the largest and grandest buildings are those belonging to the great financial powers– and the sports arenas they name after themselves. Now take a look at the schools.
For all our talk about education, colleges report that donations to the universities are highly linked to the success of the football and basketball teams.
In my town three years ago, almost no one (besides parents) showed up at a school board meeting to honor the Academic Decathlon students who went to the state finals. However, the next week it was standing room only when the board was considering changing the mascot name from “Coons” to “Raccoons”.
Until we decide to honor academic achievement at a higher level than academic prowess, until we reinforce to our kids daily that the smartest kid in the class is someone to be respected, not poked fun at, our schools will continue to decline.
There is no point in our moaning about the fact that football is more popular than quiz bowl. It just is. Nothing will change that. I could give you several theories about why–for one thing, we are hard wired to enjoy violence and will choose our entertainment accordingly. Give the kids on the Quiz Bowl team barbed wire bats and watch the rating skyrocket.
Also, it’s basic envy.You can’t get too upset over the fact that someone is better at basketball than you are because it is a simple matter of genetics- not everyone can be 7 feet tall. But people like to believe that the only reason someone is smarter than they are is because they waste time reading or have no social life.
And let’s take the long term view here. Sure, it sucks to be the smart kid who gets no attention in high school but at least he will go to college and is more likely to get a good job making real money–all factors that are much more likely to lead to sex than what happened back in 10th grade.
Part of my job as a teacher is to point out to the smart kids just how temporary and unreal high school is and how much better adult life will be for those who are mature at 16 while the rest of their peers are acting the fool. When I’ve run into them later in life 9 times out of 10 we share a laugh at how right I was.
Go Coons!
Bobb:
“What’s your standard of success measurement for a school? Graduation rate? Salary after graduation? Attendance? Performance on a standardized test? Each of these is fraught with subjective inputs.”
I’ve already said what my standard of success for a school is: “Is my child showing progress?” It’s subjective, but I think it’s a subjective measurement that parents who take an active role in their children’s lives are qualified to make. As for a measurement for the macro success for the school: “Are lots of parents dissatisfied and pulling their kids out?” seems like a solid way of marking that success.
Den:
“That was what we were told when the created charter schools in PA. Instead, they created a bunch of schools that didn’t do anything better than the regular public schools except waste money. They’ve been really good at doing that.“
Can you provide me with a link where I might find more information on the implementation of these schools?
Tim:
“I’ll ask you again, since you seem to ignore it every time I bring it up — would you be fine with using the ‘vouchers’ idea but applying it solely within the public school system? That seems to have a reasonable chance of creating the streamlining and competition you’re so confident is the answer, yet you don’t seem to be leaping at that particular opportunity. Why not?“
How is that differnt from what happens now? If I want to drive my kid to the next school district and let him go to school there, doesn’t “his” money go there instead?
1.) I tend to think of government-run schools as a bad idea, because I’m of the opinion that government, though a necessary evil, is inherently, well, evil. Allowing the government to manage my child’s education seems like a surefire method of making sure he grows up to believe that the government is the answer to every problem.
2.) I’m not sure exactly how a voucher that I can only “spend” in the public school system helps anything. Is the government going to build extra schools in my area to compete against themselves? If not, how does that help me when the second nearest high school to my home is forty miles away, in the opposite direction from my workplace?
3.) Even if the government does build two separate schools in the same district (though, expecting that to provide competition is like saying that XP Home and XP Professional constitute competing products), what would the difference be? Would we have separate governing bodies for each? It seems to me that if we have two schools that are being managed by the same set of inept fools (i.e., the local board of education), then it’s like a choice between eating horse crap or dog crap — technically, you’ve given me a choice, but it’s a lousy one.
Still, I’m willing to admit that my experiences with the public school system were extremely negative, and that probably colors my opinion of it. The public-system voucher program would be better than what we have now, but I remain convinced that a private-system (or even semi-private) is better.
Here’s my question: if I opt to send my kid to a private school, or if I opt to home school him, what happens to the money that would’ve gone to his public school? What happens in the system now (I imagine that the money simply goes back into the larger pool of government money), and what would happen in your system of “public-only school vouchers”?
When I say I want a voucher system, this is all I’m asking for: If I send my kid to a private school, I want the government to direct that $X that would’ve gone to my public schoool into the private school I’ve chosen. Why is that such a problem?
Tim, Bobb, Den (and anyone else I’ve missed):
I’ll be around a while tomorrow and may comment then, but I’m going to be away this weekend, so I’ll probably not be responding much more
I just wanted to mention that I’ve really enjoyed this discussion, even though none of us seem to have convinced anyone else. I love debating this kind of stuff, but it’s not altogether common that I get to do so without the disagreements turning to an argument.
Thanks.
> I can say with utmost confidence that teaching is a highly skilled job.
The good teachers, the one that left an impact, the ones that make a difference–I have no problem saying that they are highly skilled and deserve to be paid more.
The NEA tells us that the U.S. has somewhere in the neighborhood of three to four million teachers. Around 200,000 people graduate each year with a bachelor’s or master’s degree in education. At this size, our educational system isn’t set up to require skilled teachers, nor set up to reward them either.
> Merit pay is a chimera. How does one measure a “good” teacher? […] Teacher pay scales are based on seniority because that’s the only reasonable way to do it in a society that values grades over learning, tests over teaching.
Got me, but somehow we manage to do without a seniority system for lawyers, doctors, computer programmers, comic book writers and almost every other sector we actually care about.
Sure, how long you’ve been working in the field is an aspect in all of those systems, but by and large, professions we care about pay employees (or at least claim to pay employees) based on some measure of competency, despite the fact that there rarely exist absolute objective measures of their skills.
I have a question for you teachers out there on this thread:
What do you think of the social merits of high schools?
I’ve heard stories where people want to bring back the “girls/boys only” type schools, claiming that the other sex is merely a distraction from learning, other stupid excuses, etc.
I guess I would say that high school as much of a social benefit as education, if not greater (I was your ‘never study, ace tests type’, save for science classes).
I work for a teacher’s union. The last thing we ever want to do is offer givebacks. It’s bad precident, and a huge sign of weakness. That might seem insignificant, but I’ve sat in for contract negotiations two times now, and you’d be surprised how “out for blood” it gets.
I agree that these programs are horribly underfunded, but staff givebacks are the last thing that I would consider looking at.
This was the most despicable outrageous comment on this whole thread!
So in this union worker’s eyes, helping the schools and the children are not the most important thing for teachers, making sure that the unions get every cent they can from the union dues that are the biggest reason that teachers don’t make very much money is the most important thing.
Caring for the actual schools and students is a sign of weakness??? Unions really are evil!!!
I have to ask, why, if we’re concerned about the ever-declining quality of our education, would we want to REDUCE the requirements and qualifications necessary teach? This reaks of the same idea that if most of the kids find something too hard, we should just dumb it down to the lowest common denominator. Why is expecting people to go to school and get the proper professional recognition before, oh, molding the minds of our youth, too much of a burden and inconvenience? TEACHING IS NOT EASY; if teaching was actually easy and didn’t require any particular skill, all of the teachers we have now would be enough. Years of experience in one field does not translate into being able to teach a class how to do it. Mentoring an individual as a protege? That’s based more on a personal relationship and leading by example. Teaching a class with probably no experience in your field or any other about it? That requires specialized skills and a particular mindset that allows you to find common ground with a broad range of youth who may or may not be interested in what you’re telling them. Can someone switch careers and become a teacher late in life? Sure, but why would they be able to just waltz into the classroom a perfect teacher as opposed to walking into another field where they will need additional training?
Brian,
How do I know a doctor has done a good job? Because I’m better. I’m healed. The body provides a reasonably clear measure of “good” and “bad” medical procedures.
How do I judge that a lawyer has done a good job? Notice the use of the word “judge” instead of “know”. Because we won. The bigger we won, the better she did, many would judge. At the same time, lawyers are one of the most maligned groups of people in history, and not without some good reason. There is a disconnect in that profession between what is right and true, and what is decided by the court. Still, when it comes to paying a lawyer, people want to win, so there is an objective way to judge lawyers. It may be one of those things that ends up destroying us (this disconnect between justice and law), but people judge it that way.
How do I know a programmer did a good job? The program works efficiently and does what it needs to do. People want a program that works, and they complain when they don’t get it. If the program doesn’t work, or if the computer is broken, they chuck the part that doesn’t work.
How do I judge a comic writer did a good job? The story sells well. The quality of writing is opinion, and so businesses turn to sales numbers as criteria over things like critical praise. Look at the fate of FALLEN ANGEL. Great book, huge critical praise, poor sales. The disconnect between quality and sales means some sucky books continue and some great books don’t, but there’s no moral issue here, so people accept it. It’s business, and comic books are not living things. When they outlive their usefulness, they are discarded.
How do I judge that a teacher has done a good job? I must first decide on a criterion to consider. After all, schools are a business, right? So I’ll look at the other “businesses” that you’ve mentioned and make sure the analogies hold.
If I want an objective answer, I say “check what kids have learned through test scores.” It’s like doctors, right? Wrong, of course. The health of the body is a measurable factor connected to the quality of a person’s life. The test scores of a student aren’t necessarily connected to what the student knows in a meaningful way. There’s that disconnect again. So, schools aren’t like hospitals.
If I want a “winner”, I judge with test scores. I can judge who “wins” and who “loses”. Measuring student performance tells me how teachers are doing, so the teacher with the most “wins” is good and the teacher with the most “losses” is bad, so I go with the winner the same way I do with a lawyer, right? Wrong, of course. If teachers were the only factor in the student’s test scores, or if they even factored in as heavily as a lawyer might in a case, then picking the teacher might mean picking the winner. But the sheer number of factors–not the least of which are the student’s parents, with whom the student spends much more time over his life than he does with his teacher–involved here means that picking a teacher doesn’t guarantee or even strongly predict a “win.” So, schools aren’t like courthouses.
If I want a teacher that “clicks” with my student, I judge by the efficiency and effectiveness of the program, right? Judging how well the teacher conveys the information, the quality of the information, etc. tells me if that person is a good teacher the same way that checking a program tells me I have a good programmer, right? Wrong, of course. If teachers are the programs, the students are the computers. Try fitting a single program to an infinite diversity of CPU’s and various hardware. Let me know how that goes. Remember, too, that the family has installed a unique OS in the student that has its own strengths and weaknesses. No Windows program can ever be more stable than the OS, because it is built on the foundation of the OS. No teacher, no curriculum, can ever be expected to change the baggage a kid brings with him from his family. So, schools aren’t like software firms.
(A note for the programmer analogy–remember, too, that if each teacher is a program, then every school is going to have multiple programs for a student. Shall I move schools every year to pick the best one? Never mind the hassle for me and the academic disconnect such frequent moving would cause for my child–would you have liked to have made new friends every year?)
If I want a teacher that “works” for the largest number of people, I judge by the popularity of the teacher, right? If many kids are happy with the way the teacher treats them, if many parents are happy with the grades their students get and the level of knowledge their students gain, then the teacher must be good, right? Wrong… to an extent. If kids are really interested in a teacher who treats them fairly and challenges them appropriately, then that part works. If the parents are really interested in seeing their kids learn the most they can and performing to their potential, then that part works. Of course, if the parents really only care about the grades their kids get so that the kid can go to a good college or get a scholarship, then anything less than an “A” is unacceptable. If the parents have that attitude, you can bet that the kid only cares about an easy class, not an appropriate challenge. If you have those latter standards instead of the former, then popularity isn’t always the best judge. So, schools can’t be treated like comic book companies–especially for purposes of merit pay–in many situations.
There are things that every profession has in common. Education shares traits with the businesses you mention, with one huge exception: ***Education Is Not A Business.*** When a teacher deals with a student who is “terminally ill” or “permanently paralyzed” in some way, we can’t just say, “that’s all we can do. Your child is discharged.” When a school has bad test scores, we can’t just not admit the students whose scores are low. Academics are very, very important, but they are not ALL-important, no matter what W wants you to believe with his pie-in-the-sky, 100% will succeed NCLB crap. When a teacher’s educational program is inferior to another’s, that teacher is not automatically inferior. I am not the best teacher in my school. At the same time, I know that there are students who are ALIVE today because I listened and took time. You think my being 10% better at teaching English matters compared to that? When one teacher–or one school–is more popular than another, the “competition” the quality disparity creates is not necessarily constructive. I know whole districts that are more concerned with test scores than they are with education–mainly because they’re desperate to compete for their “clients”’ money. Those kids are not coming out as prepared as they could be if the school didn’t have to waste time pandering to some test written by people with their own political agendas.
Education does not happen in a vacuum, either. Students bring in the problems from the world–the school doesn’t create those problems and then send them out. Violence in schools has less to do with teachers or a lack of “intelligent design” teachings than it does with our country’s messed-up value system that tells us that it’s better to examine rape procedures in detail than it is to see an exposed nipple.
You think the problems of the public schools would be solved by sending kids to private schools? Private schools sort on the basis of money. Most of the middle class and up folks (no matter their color or religion) would be very happy with their schools then. Why? Because all of the problems of poverty would be swept under the rug “where they belong.” While I have no problem with someone sending their child to a school because they believe that it is their religious duty to do so, I do have a problem with someone marginalizing others because they want their kid to see only the 5% of the world that meets their standards. People adoring private schools because they “sort out” the undesirables are like tourists declaring CountryX to be the best country in the world because they never had to see the crushing poverty afflicting 95% of the population.
Vouchers do not solve the sorting and accessibility problems, either. Look at voucher legislation sometime. Here in Michigan, when they’ve put up vouchers for a vote (and they’ve lost so far, thank goodness), the proposed vouchers have never been worth the full $6700 per student each public school gets, but many private school tuitions are $10,000 OR MORE. Even if they did offer the full amount, that still leaves $3,300 or more per year for the family to come up with. You think someone near the poverty line sees that kind of sum as an opportunity? If someone walked up to me right now and said, “I’ll give you ten billion dollars if you give me ten thousand dollars in cash right now,” I’d have to refuse him! I don’t have that kind of cash on me. That someone didn’t offer me any real benefit because I couldn’t afford his offer!
Still, “the public schools aren’t working now”, so we’d better try something, right? That’s like the doctor saying, “Well, I can’t cure the disease, but I can always decapitate the guy and see what happens.” When we can see clearly that PlanX disadvantages that outweigh the problems of the status quo, we must NOT accept PlanX.* I don’t deny that the public schools need to find a better way, but treating them like businesses isn’t the way.
You find me a business that succeeds when 1) it MUST work with whatever faulty materials it’s given, 2) it RARELY has enough capital to invest properly, 3) it CANNOT measure its true success because of the lack of a true, reliable bottom line, 4) it DOES NOT PAY its employees salaries comparable to others with similar levels of education, and 5) its competitors CHERRY-PICK the best raw materials, then I will seriously think about treating the public schools like that business.
Until then, please support the teachers and students who must work within our flawed public schools and try to find ways to make those students’ lives better, because it may be one of them who can visualize that business model I mentioned.
Eric
* a shout-out to all you db8ers out there! w00t!
“There is no point in our moaning about the fact that football is more popular than quiz bowl. It just is. Nothing will change that.”
And that’s the complacent type thinking that is leaving America left in the educational dust. Maybe I’m cynical from going to school in Indiana, but ungodly amounts of money are poured into sports programs at the expense of other programs. Teamwork, discipline, grace in victory and defeat, yeah, I learned all of those in marching band, yet we had to win state championships 3 or 4 times before the school board remembered the music program come budget time, never mind that we were the ONLY ones bringing home trophies.
So, to paraphrase, sports are a good way to make the physically fit, but dumb kids feel better about themselves. Hurray, let’s continue to celebrate intellectual mediocrity. Heck, there are even some kids focusing on sports who could actually BE something if they would actually apply themselves, but it’s easier to get the instant gratification of basing their self-worth on suiting up and trying to maim other kids, earning accolades from the crowd.
The sad thing is that a lot of Americans are actually going to be surprised when the cure for cancer or AIDS comes out of China or India. It will, unless we get off of our collective, Big Mac infused duff and start encouraging intellectual excellence NOW.
And guess what? It starts with the parents.
-Rex Hondo-
“After months of debate over science and religion, the Kansas Board of Education has tentatively approved new state science standards that weaken the role evolution plays in teaching about the origin of life.”
Sorry … first reaction? “I wonder what Kal-El would think of this?”
“I recently saw a news program showing how girls in India were not getting an education while their brothers were…I don’t know if this is something that is commonplace or limited to one region (India is a big place).”
Don’t try telling that to the two middle-aged women I work/worked with who do/did (one moved on to another company) much of our computer programming over the years and are both from India, born, bred and educated there. Then again they were from big cities, perhaps things are different in the countryside.
“There is no point in our moaning about the fact that football is more popular than quiz bowl. It just is. Nothing will change that.”
And it isn’t as though this is something new. The late Dr. Asimov bemoaned this in his mid-1960s essay THE CULT OF IGNORANCE.
“I’m at a loss to explain how “for-profit” is somehow a bad thing.”
Define ‘bad’. If you’re trying to keep costs down and then add a profit atop those very same basic costs, you’ll wind up defeating the stated purpose of the exercise. Either that, or you often wind up with so much corner-cutting that the product winds up worse than it started out. Yes, there is sometimes fat to be trimmed, but when you start hacking at the bones …
” … so that I can learn to write in something called Plain English. And the instructor is very good as telling us that it’s not “dumbing down” our writing…but that’s exactly what it is.”
Disagree.
In all too many instances, professionals, be they bureaucrats, lawyers, or electrical engineers, have become so used to their respective high-falutin’ jargon that they have lost the ability to communicate with the ‘common man’. They need to be taught how to write in ten relatively simple words what they are used to taking fifty polysyllabic ones such that their non-professional audience will get an approximate idea of what they are talking about which may not be precise down to the umpteenth decimal place their jargon would afford them, but good enough for the layman to get what they are driving at.
Or, as I once told a programmer as I was going over changes to the user manual [intended for the average office worker in my workplace] he’d written “this is why they are getting me to rewrite it instead of you. I’ve just stated in one line what it took you this large paragraph full of terms the average non-programmer couldn’t be expected to know.”
That he still didn’t get it made my point for me.