Abolish local school districts (except for the 20 largest cities and the 50 states), advocates former IBM CEO Lou Gerstner in the Wall Street Journal. Then establish national standards for reading, math, science and social studies with a test to match. Gerstner also wants to set national standards for teacher certification, pay teachers based on their students’ performance and extend the school day and year.
Gerstner’s proposals would take the public out of public education, writes Deborah Meier on Bridging Differences.
Don’t link national standards to the abolition of local control, responds Flypaper.
The state of Hawaii is one big school district. As I understand it — Hawaiians, feel free to chime in — it hasn’t worked well.
From his proposal:
Because … you know … the larger school districts (New York City, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, …) tend to produce better results than the smaller school districts.
I must be missing something here. The idea is to make *all* public education more like the districts that have a reputation for performing the worst?
-Mark Roulo
Gerstner, like many others, overlooks a very significant variable: parents. Regardless of standards, tests, teacher certification and pay, where parents support education, children do well. Has any one compared the schools in which a high percentage of parents teach at home, looking over papers and filling in concepts their children have missed, hiring tutors or sending their children to learning centers with those schools where few do these things? Some parents take over the whole thing and educate at home. No matter what is pumped into schools, kids whose education is supported at home will come out ahead. Distancing education from parents and the communities that support them has not helped and it will not.
Homeschooling Granny
For years we have had as our goal the educating of all the children of all the people, but this can not be achieved unless we also educate all the parents of all the children as to their responsibility for the education of their children. –Lewis Alderman (1872-1965)
What a deeply insightful and forward-thinking person that Lou Gerstner is.
I’m sure that national standards for academics, with matching tests, and national teacher certification standards wouldn’t become massive, political footballs that would end up producing results which would satisfy no one but would satisfy the educational needs of kids the least.
I mean, what are the chances of something like that happening?
His objectives seemed good. They were:
1) Set high academic standards for all of our kids, supported by a rigorous curriculum.
2) Greatly improve the quality of teaching in our classrooms, supported by substantially higher compensation for our best teachers.
3) Measure student and teacher performance on a systematic basis, supported by tests and assessments.
4) Increase “time on task” for all students; this means more time in school each day, and a longer school year.
He didn’t provide a convincing bridge between the goals and the means. Perhaps the brevity of the article prohibited this. Unfortunately there was no link to anything more substantial either.
1) One standard for all kids? It isn’t possible to set a standard which all children will find rigorous. If there’s one standard, the best you could produce would be 50% for whom it’d be a reasonable goal, 25% for whom it would be ridiculously easy, and 25% for whom it would be out of reach.
2) Improve the quality of teaching? Just paying teachers more won’t improve the quality of their teaching.
3) See Joanne’s post about the state of chemistry instruction in Great Britain. The British have been testing on a national basis, using a set curriculum, for decades.
4) More time in a dysfunctional environment does not necessarily produce better results. You can’t use KIPP and other charters as an argument that more time automatically produces better results, because most of them use the time well, for targeted tutoring.
As far as the objectives go:
1) This objective does not say one standard for all students. I’m not sure he even meant that in the means statements, but at least its not an unfair assumption.
2) Higher pay was a support not the primary objective. I suppose that he could have left the more pay part to the section on means, but I’m guessing he thought that important enough to elevate it to the objectives.
3) This objective states nothing about national standards, once again that was in the means not the objectives.
4) You’re right, point 4 doesn’t stand on its own. It requires points 1 through 3 to be effective which is why they were included.
I like Gerstner’s idea, from an efficiency standpoint, if nothing else. It just astounds me how much effort we waste as a nation, each one of thousands of district laboriously devising its own blueprint for education, draft after draft, year after year. Thousands of humans, millions of hours, involved in reinventing the wheel over and over. And more often than not, it’s a pretty crappy wheel (Palo Alto, Greenwich and Bethesda perhaps excepted).
A better idea: assemble a team of sages (Hirsch, Ravitch, etc.), who have studied successful public ed systems (Finland, France, Taiwan) to set forth a grand, shining, Platonic Ideal of an education plan for all the well-meaning but under-resourced and, frankly, somewhat benighted local communities to use and benefit from. Save effort and improve education in one stroke.
Where has Gerstner been? Chicago has one massive school district; it doesn’t seem to have worked too well for them.
I like Ponderosa’s suggestion of looking at successful systems such as those in Finland. But also, Americans seem to forget that while our K-12 grade schools are atrocious, the university system is a world-beater that many up and coming nations in Asia are rushing to emulate. Care to guess what one of the biggest reasons for that is?
(whispers) *competition, even between government funded institutions, along with competition with private schools*
This idea was kicked around very briefly in San Antonio, which is situated in Bexar County, which has 16 separate school districts IIRC. The justification? It would equitably spread the property tax receipts. After all, when you just throw money at schools, they just magically get better!!! Needless to say, this idea went away rather quickly and died an unlamented death.
IBM, which explains his perspective. I’ve got a real problem bringing the IBM culture to public schools because, in my current job, I’ve experienced it as a client. When companies bring IBM in as an IT partner, they bring in a partner that puts the IBM culture and need for centralized control above the needs of the company paying the money on the contract. Trying to get test servers set up has always been a nightmare, and the IBM software they insist is the “right” solution often isn’t.
The problem in with a lot of schools is not that they lack a centralized direction, it’s that they’re out of touch with the challenges they face on a local level because they lack leadership that is perceptive enough to get what those challenges are. Moving leadership up the ladder and farther away from those challenges is moving it exactly in the wrong direction.
I have nothing against efficiency, but since Gerstner didn’t claim savings would be in the $10’s of billions or $100’s of billions I’ll assume that he meant single digit billions of dollars. That would probably be enough to pay teachers in CA about $100,000/year with nothing left over for the rest of the country. If he wants people to buy into his means, he better sell it better.
Some calculations:
Seems that CA has about 300,000 classroom teachers in public schools, here’s the link:
http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/Articles/Article.asp?title=Teachers%20in%20California
So assuming the average teacher makes about $65,000 - I think that’s high –, that would be another $35,000 to increase teacher pay to $100,000. So just for CA that would be about 10.5 billion dollars.
But then again I believe he said only the best teachers would make that salary. So let’s just assume that means 10% of teachers. So that would be $1 billion for California. And by the 2006 census data California is about 12% (36/299) of the United States population, so making a very simplified assumption that would be about $8.3 billion for the entire country. If that 10% means something I’d sure want access to those teachers for my kids.
1) Set high academic standards for all of our kids, supported by a rigorous curriculum.
Which will happen because the proponents of every idiotic edu-fad of the past six or eight decades won’t try to have input to the standards-setting and curriculum-development process. Similarly, every group with a political ax to grind will nobly eschew monkeying with the process as well.
2) Greatly improve the quality of teaching in our classrooms, supported by substantially higher compensation for our best teachers.
Yes, a vast, national hierarchy will improve the quality of teaching by decreeing that it happen. And the concept and particulars of differential pay? Piece o’ cake!
3) Measure student and teacher performance on a systematic basis, supported by tests and assessments.
Tests and assessments which will emerge from a process in which several politically powerful constituencies will make certain they have a say.
4) Increase “time on task” for all students; this means more time in school each day, and a longer school year.
Oh what’s the point? To a man with a hammer every problem looks like a nail and to an amateur authoritarian every problem’s solvable via the cracking of a whip.
Regardless of standards, tests, teacher certification and pay, where parents support education, children do well.
And this was even more true back when there were no schools at all. From which I deduce the rule that the more incompetent schools are, the more vital parental support is to children’s success.
However, it appears that some parents, for a variety of reasons, do not support education. The original rationale for government funding of public schools, and for compulsory schooling laws, was to provide an education to those whose parents do not support it. And there is I think a strong policy argument for making that education as effective as possible, taking into account the parental lack of support.
For years we have had as our goal the educating of all the children of all the people, but this can not be achieved unless we also educate all the parents of all the children as to their responsibility for the education of their children. –Lewis Alderman (1872-1965)
I’m fine with this, but if it’s the responsibility of parents to educate their children then we should shut down the schools and stop wasting money on them.
Some points:
1) A CEO’s opinion doesn’t count any more or less than anyone else’s.
2) I’m all for a national set of standards. Every mature profession has standardization and education should be no exception. Would you be healthier if doctors measured blood pressure in a different way in New York than doctors in Wisconsin? Or if 140/90 was considered high in California but pretty darn good in Texas? I see no reason for every hole in the wall district doing their own thing.
3) Large districts in large cities don’t necessarily do bad because they’re big. They usually deal with the worst students (and their parents) and the most crime. Would things magically improve because we turned big districts into a bunch of small ones? I believe that “I showered the world with a crappy OS” Bill Gates already tried something similar.
4) The way to improve education is to remove education schools and their nitwit professors from the debate and to keep these people from setting standards and strategies. The village idiot has a better grip on education than the education school professors I’ve met.
Allen,
So does that mean you think public education is an oxymoron? Or are you thinking of alternative objectives?
Aloha, all, from Hawaii,
Louis Gerstner writes from profound ignorance of his subject.
District Size
a) Across the US, the coefficient of correlation (%20K+dist, score) is negative (around -0.4) where “%20K+dist” is the fraction of total State-level enrollment assigned to districts over 20,000 (or 15,000 depending on which year of the Digest of Education Statistics you use) and “score” is NAEP 4th or 8th grade Reading or Math score. Across the US, the coefficient of correlation (%top 130, score) is negative, where “%top130″ is the fraction of total State-level enrollment assigned to one or another of the nation’s top 130 largest school districts. Across the US, the coefficient of correlation (mean didt, score) is negative, where “meandist.” is the State-level mean district size. I have used Reading proficiency scores, Reading percentile scores, Math percentime scores, Math proficiency scores, Math Mean scores. I have used Math composite scores, Numbers and Operations subtest scores, and Algebra and Functions subtest scores. The result is always the same: smaller is better.
b) Across the US, the coefficient of correlation between the above measures of district size and per pupil budget is positive. Large districts cost more, per pupil, to operate. Caroline Hoxby has compared per pupil costs in urban polities with several small districts to per pupil costs in urban polities with large unified districts and found the result (larger => more expensive) holds.
Standards
“Standards” are a distraction. A standard is a unit of measurement. A yardstick is a standard. Academic standards are to intellectual growth what meaduring rods are to physical growth. Platinum measuring rods will not make children taller. academic standards will not make children smarter.
Merit Pay
“Merit pay” is an invitation to a protrated, unproductive argument. We have unambiguous measures of student performance in few subjects. Will Art and History teachers not qualify for consideration? Is merit pay only for Math, Chemistry, and Physics teachers and elementary English teachers (we can measure vocabulary)? Does no Special Ed teacher ever qualify? Read Myron Lieberman’s discussion of the issue in __The Educational Morass__. Unions oppose merit pay and principals do not want the added work and dissension it would bring.
Time on Task
Compulsory, unpaid labor is slavery, black or white, male or female, young or old. The fundamental variable which determines overall system performance is student motivation. Compulsion kills motivation. Einstein opposed compulsory attendance at school. Gandhi opposed compulsory attendance at school. More (compelled) time on task means less motivation, more drug abuse, more vandalism, more violence.
Let’s lock Mr Gerstner away for 12 years and see how he likes it.
btw, the Hawaii DOE operates one of the worst school systems in the US. By some measures, we are dead last.
There’s a difference between standards of good practice and a single command and control bureaucracy. Education desperately needs the former to improve effectiveness. Good teachers have figured out what to do through experience, but new teachers are left to experiment on their classes until they either get it right or settle in to being bad teachers.
Moreover, without standards of good practice, administrators and parents can’t assess whether teachers are doing a good job in any logical sort of way. This leads to disengaged parents (who are such because the school is turned into a “black box” by teachers and administrators who don’t want scrutiny) and capricious administrators who see fit to use any sort of power to run the school.
What public education absolutely does not need is a single, centralized bureaucracy without standards of good practice. All that will result in is a self-centered, self-perpetuating monster that shares many cultural similarities with IBM. Maybe that’s why Gerstner is proposing what he is, but it’s simply the wrong solution.
I say start with a national standard on the teaching of biology. That’ll go well.
Another little detail. The executive branch of our government is constrained by that neat little feature known as “checks and balances.” The president and the governors of the fifty states could all agree they wanted to effect this change. The largest effect would be the immediate laughter from the legislatures and judges of the states.
Leave aside the infantile power fantasies of commissar wannabe Louis Gerstner.
What ever happened to federalism?
The President of the US exercises legitimate authority over three K-12 school systems, the Department of Interion BIA schools, the US DOD schools (for dependents of military employees overseas), and the US State Department’s Embassy schools (for State Department employees oveseas). All the President has to do to inject competition into the US K-12 education industry is…
1) Require that these schools develop a sequence of exams which satisfy course requirements at each grade level.
2) Require that they license independent companies and schools to administer these exams to anyone who applies.
3) Require that these schools grant credit to anyone who passes these tests, at any age, at any time of year.
4) Require that all US agencies recognize diplomas earned through the exam process.
Let competition between Sylvan Learning Centers, the Kumon Institute, and the University of Phoenix drive the cost of a K-12 education down to the cost of books and proctoring exams.
The President exercises legitimate authority over five post-secondary institutions, the Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland, the US Military Academy at West Point, New York, the Air Force Academy in Boulder, Colorado, the Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut, and the Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point, New York. All the President has to do to make college affordable is…
1) Require that these schools develop a sequence of exams which satisfy course requirements for some limited set of undergraduate majors.
2) Require that these schools license independent companies and schools to administer these exams to anyone who applies.
3) Require that these schools grant credit to anyone who passes these tests, at any age, at any time of year.
4) Require that all US agencies recognize degrees earned through the exam process.
Let competition between Sylvan Learning Centers, the Kumon Institute, and the University of Phoenix drive the cost of a college degree down to the cost of books and proctoring exams.
If school is not an employment program for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel, why not? If it is fraud for a mechanic to charge for the repair of a functional motor and if it is fraud for a physician to charge for the treatment of a healthy patient, then it is fraud for a school district to bill taxpayers for the instruction of a student who does not need our help.
Our curriculum is already standardized enough. If we all agreeded on this idea of nationalizing curriculum, youd think we weren’t trying to teach our children to grow up, be unique and change the future, but to do what ur told, be the same as everyone else, and follow the crowd. That sounds like a pretty bleak future for our younger generations…
And the idea of paying teachers substantially better for doing a better job and having better grades in their classrooms is not a good idea. Someone could easily just give their students better grades so they get paid more.
A teacher should love teaching because of the satisfaction they get from actually teaching their students and helping them succeed. Not for money.
Malcolm’s got way, WAY, too much blind faith in corporations.
The amount of waste that goes on in corporations is astronomical. I’ve been there, and I’ve seen it. Corporations are simply very good at creating the illusion that they’re so efficient. Entrusting education to “competition” is not the answer.
“Malcolm’s got way, WAY, too much blind faith in corporations.”
Malcom isn’t trusting the corporations at all. He is trusting that the exams will be good enough that they can’t be gamed. If this is true, how efficient or inefficient isn’t anyone’s concern except for the people running the corporation. The customers would care about *cost* and results, but internal efficiency wouldn’t be an issue for the customers.
If the exams *can* be gamed, then everything falls apart…
Malcom is also implicitly trusting that parents will make a reasonable price/quality tradeoff for their children’s education.
-Mark Roulo
Entrusting education to “competition” is a better answer than entrusting it to a large monopoly. We’ve already seen what large monopoly school districts like Chicago and D.C. turn into, and it’s not pretty. Like I said earlier, I’ve seen what the command and control culture at IBM looks like, and it’s not pretty.
Parents need choice, and communities need local control of their schools. Organizations function better when they have smaller budgets and are more connected to stakeholders. The best large companies function as a group of small, agile units. IBM is an example of what the best companies don’t do, and Gerstner wants to turn the nations public schools into a series of IBMs. Not smart.
I think nationalizing the curriculum would be a good idea because it would be easier and would ensure that the sudents learn what they need to know for a test that they have to take. maybe not so much nationalizing teachers pay based on how well they perform. How will that be monitored? Will someone sit in the classroom and determine how well the teacher is doing? Or will there be a survey for the students to fill out? Maybe not so much with the teachers pay, but definately the curriculum should be nationalized.
Thanks, Mark.
I have more faith in competition than in monopolies, that is all. US States are corporations. Counties, cities, and incorporated townships are corporations. Unions are 501-c(5) corporations. Independent schools are 501-c(3) corporations. Churches are corporations.
The only standard that might improve the US education industry is the parent standard: “Do I want my child in that school?” The most effective form of accountability which humans have yet devised is the ability of unhappy customers to take their business elsewhere.
Rachel,
I don’t think you intended your comment as a criticism of my proposal, but of Mr. Gerstner’s proposal. I would not make any curriculum mandatory. I recommend that the Executive branch offer three sets of tests (for K-12) as escape options.
Let competition between Sylvan Learning Centers, the Kumon Institute, and the University of Phoenix drive the cost of a K-12 education down to the cost of books and proctoring exams.
This is the typical battle cry of radical privatizers. Driving down costs to some minimal level is possible only if it’s efficient. Privatizers assume that business runs at maximum efficiency and that any and all government entities run at maximum inefficiency.
“Privatizers assume that business runs at maximum efficiency…”
I make no such assumption. I know that it does not take twelve years at $12,000 per pupil-year to teach a normal child to read and compute. Most vocational training occurs more effectively on the job than in a classroom. State provision of History and Civics instruction is a threat to democracy, just as State operation of newspapers would be (is, in totalitarian countries).
If my proposal is unrealistic, the current recipients of the taxpayers’ $500 billion+ per year K-12 subsidy have nothing to fear.
Nice strawman. Personally, I’d like to see privitization of schools, but not out of the belief that all corporations are maximally efficient and all government is maximally inefficient. (Note that I’ve been pointing out the problems with large companies like IBM.) The problem with federal solution to problems is that the federal government has a severe information deficit in solving local problems. They’re much more likely to propose the same solution for different cities with different problems.
What needs to happen, like I’ve been saying, is that education as a profession has to develop professional standards and practices based on sound research and practical experience. Along with this, control needs to be moved down to the community level so communities can make sure they’re getting the schools they need, whether those are private, charter, or public.
Dear Malcolm,
You may not remember, but you and I danced (and danced, and danced) on another forum regarding education a few years back. Your entire point was that public education is inherently bad, and unfixable, seemingly only because it’s public.
At some point I mentioned that the FAA is a government monopoly, and yet its employees safely deliver tens of thousands of flights safely each day. You insisted that some kind of “competion” between assorted corporations/entities would achieve the same, or better. You never specified how. In light of current free market screwups, I doubt anyone would feel better about rent-a-flight-controllers from an assortment of companies.
You “know” it doesn’t take 12 grand per year to teach a kid? If you and your wife both work you’ll spend that much just for someone to watch your kid in a year. If your wife stays home, you’re sacrificing her salary.
Most vocational training is done more effectively on the job? They did this in the Dark Ages too. Many kids today can’t even read a ruler, but we’ll just wait for someone to train them on the job.
I hate it when I can’t get the point of a post even though I know all the words.
Sigh.
Is the comment above supposed to be in *support* of public education? Or an argument against vocational education? Or what?
-Mark Roulo
Mark,
Yes, this is in support of public education. I firmly believe that students should graduate from high school with basic skills so they will be able to adapt to whatever challenges they face.
Based on our past exchanges Malcolm stated that compulsory education is slavery, so students presumably would learn to read when they themselves decided it might be a good idea. Perhaps when they get their first job the boss will teach them to read.
Physics Teacher -
Air traffic control is a poor choice to bring up when discussing an education monopoly. ATC has to be a single, unified system because it’s responsible for tracking and traffic planning of objects moving too fast to self-coordinate. Also, the need fulfilled by ATC in any given location is rather uniform.
Neither is true with education. Richmond, CA is a distressed community where kids often have trouble mastering basic skills. Just nine miles (and one bridge) west of Richmond is Corte Madera, a prosperous community where most kids are served well by the schools. In addition, there is no need for clockwork coordination between schools in different communities. Both of these factors point to keeping control local and having a variety of services.
Finally, even though it is a monopoly in the US, ATC is still a small, flat organization that stays close to immediate needs, something the large school districts proposed by Gerstner would *not* be.
“FAA is a government monopoly, and yet its employees safely deliver tens of thousands of flights safely each day. You insisted that some kind of “competion” between assorted corporations/entities would achieve the same, or better.”
Link? I do not remember this. Sounds unlikely to me.
Air traffic controlers are traffic cops. The public benefits from uniform rules of the road. The education industry is not a close analog. Uniformity in the education industry is no virtue, given the wide range of students’ interests and abilities and the wide range of career paths a modern economy offers.
I make less of the public/private distinction than most. The government of a locality is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality. Unions, even “public sector” unions, are private 501-c(5) corporations. We are all public citizens and private individuals. People do not become more intelligent, better-informed, more altruistic, or more capable (except in their access to violence) when they enter the State’s employ. Quite the contrary; guns attract thugs and Hitler wannabes (like Louis Gerstnr).
I would love to hear the libertarian/free market fundamentalists on this site explain why school systems in Japan, Finland, France, and all the other nations whose kids score so well on international tests, manage to educate their kids so well despite the fact that they are, gasp, public monopolies.
In the case of Japan, Ponderosa, I would suggest looking at the culture of the country. Japan is a place where a very high emphasis is placed on education. This isn’t the case in the United States. If it were so, please explain why in such levels such as high school, the emphasis is on anything other than learning (often on the theory, I suspect, that the whole teaching thing is a college problem, not high school, where the emphasis is on athletics, extracurricular activities, and making sure the kids have a GREAT social environment).
I would also suspect the same for Finland and France as well. I also note that each country is a Nanny State with taxation levels most Americans would find abhorrent (and still can’t save Japan from having a national debt 194% of GDP, FAR worse than that even of the United States).
Abolish school districts? Well, explain to me how sports will thrive? If they don’t have other districts to compete against, then there are no teams… and if you think about it, no teams = no national sports, either. I would hate to be a student in a “nationalized education” without local school districts. I wouldn’t know what it was like to be a part of a public school and yes, even to know what it feels like for a levy to fail. Yes, levy’s shouldn’t be the only things that fund schools and the national government really does need to step up the funding of schools. But abolishing them completely? That would take so many dollars and so many years. Changing the standards on teaching certifications would mean that every teacher may need to re-attend college (paying money that they don’t have and causing even MORE people to be in debt!) and then it would just be controversy.
I like the idea of national standards, however. Taking out school districts to me is just bad news. But I know for a fact that the British schools run off a national curriculum, and they definitely have better graduation rates than we do in the US. We could have schools follow a national curriculum and a national test, they do so successfully. And doing so wouldn’t require overhauling teaching certifications either. It would be a change to what classes are required, for how long, and the material that is taught. It would also provide that the national government plays a bigger role in children’s education, which, as I’ve said, is time for them to do.
And I mean, come on, if one state doesn’t work, who in their right mind feels that the rest of the United States would work?
I’m for a national curriculum, but not so much this way of nationalizing education.
“I would love to hear the libertarian/free market fundamentalists on this site explain why school systems in Japan, Finland, France, and all the other nations whose kids score so well on international tests, manage to educate their kids so well despite the fact that they are, gasp, public monopolies.
Japan has a thriving market in tutorial institutions (juku). Dunno much about Finland and France. “All…are public monopolies…” misrepresents the case. 90% of Hong Kong students take subsidies to independent schools. I conjecture that the remaining 10% are sp-ed and/or delinquent. 90% of Irish students take tax subsidies to independent schools, according to OECD __Education at a Glance__. Close to 70% of Dutch students and close to 65% of Belgian students take tax subsidies to independent schools. Sweden, Poland, the Czech Republic, Chile, Singapore and some Canadian provinces subsidize options outside the government school system.
Gerard Lassibile and Lucia Navarro Gomez
“Organization and Efficiency of Educational Systems: some empirical findings”, pg. 16,
__Comparative Education__ , Vol. 36 #1, 2000, Feb.
“Furthermore, the regression results indicate that countries where private education is more widespread perform significantly better than countries where it is more limited. The result showing the private sector to be more efficient is similar to those found in other contexts with individual data (see, for example, Psucharopoulos, 1987; Jiminez, et. al, 1991).
This finding should convince countries to reconsider policies that reduce the role of the private sector in the field of education”.
Ponderosa -
What I’ve noticed in all the countries you mention is a coherent national curriculum. Students and schools have a standard for which they can aim. The US doesn’t have this, and even in those states that do, like California, the standards are undermined by mush-brained teachers who buy the ed school line about putting activism and social justice before content and achievement.
In addition to this is the unwillingness of many American educators to hold kids to any objective standard of behavior or academic achievement in the name of self-esteem. This is a disease we share with England, and the fast-slipping standards and achievement seen there are a sign of what is to come here.
To have what you have in France, Finland, and Japan, you need a fairly strong set of social standards along with an explicit commitment to educational achievement. In addition, it would be worth examining the educational systems of these countries from an organizational standpoint. I doubt they allow the same distance of control to occur that we do here.
standards are undermined by mush-brained teachers who buy the ed school line about putting activism and social justice before content and achievement.
The mush-brains are usually the administrators — people who swallow the ed school trash hook, line, and sinker.
In addition to this is the unwillingness of many American educators to hold kids to any objective standard of behavior or academic achievement in the name of self-esteem
This isn’t the necessarily the teachers’ call.
In addition, it would be worth examining the educational systems of these countries from an organizational standpoint. I doubt they allow the same distance of control to occur that we do here
Go to an education school. Say “kids in Singapore kick US ass in math. Discuss”. It’s very unlikely that anyone in the room will even contemplate asking questions like “what textbooks do they use in Singapore to teach math?”. Instead, the discussion will immediately focus on money. How to get money to train teachers in OUR methods (which suck). How to get money for laptops because kids can master “technology” while (not) mastering addition. Rinse. Repeat until class ends.
America’s education problems begin and end in the education schools.
Sweden, Poland, the Czech Republic, Chile, Singapore and some Canadian provinces subsidize options outside the government school system.
My cousin’s from Poland. He went to a vocational high school where he took apart motorcycle engines. Yet he’s better educated than many average Americans.
His wife attended regular schools in Warsaw.
Their son is a top student here in the US in a very good school district. When he was in the tenth grade he was taking 11th grade math. His mother took a look at what passes for 11th grade math here and said that this is what kids in Poland learn in the 8th grade.
We have friends from Korea. It’s amazing how much they know compared to people who grew up here. Yet they never mentioned ever going to anything like juku.
Uniformity in the education industry is no virtue, given the wide range of students’ interests and abilities and the wide range of career paths a modern economy offers
Really. So if math programs like Singapore Math and Saxon Math outperform programs like Everyday Math there’s absolutely no virtue in standardizing and using programs that work. Programs that are supported by math and engineering professors. Programs that work well in other countries. Some students apparently “need” crappy math programs which their local school districts will lovingly give them.
Same with reading programs. Whole language has been an abomination based on flawed assumptions. But let’s let school districts use them on unsuspecting parents and children. Some of them may choose to become ed school professors in this modern economy and they’ll need to be familiar with the snake oil that will become their livelyhood.
And what happens when a teacher has transfer students who are completely unprepared to deal with the class material because they’re from a district that “chose” crappy programs because their students “needed” them?
I agree with Allen. I don’t have much faith that the government can define one strong curriculum for all. The goals would look like NAEP. If you have just one curriculum, it will be weak, and it will probably be a low-end, cut-off curriculum that everyone has to pass. Like NCLB, the minimum becomes the maximum. The focus has to be on the high end, not the low end.
I would rather see the College Board define their own, high level standards and tests for K-8, designed to properly prepare kids (content and skill-wise) for the AP tracks in high school. The International Baccalaureate Organization could do the same thing for their high school IB programs. Something has to be done about the low and fuzzy expectations of K-8 schools. The answer is not NCLB and it’s not a return to the world of no accountability.
I’m a big proponent of unfettered charter schools and choice. Parents have to be given control to allow them to meet their own educational goals right now. They cannot wait for slow, statistical improvement towards a minimal goal. K-8 schools could do a lot to solve this problem, but I’m not optimistic. Larger school districts could offer choices in curricula, selected by the parents. They could offer a choice of TERC and Singapore Math. It doesn’t happen. K-8 educators are educational and social development dictators. Everyone is stuck with all-kids-are-equal, low expectation, low academics curricula. (Just try to find a K-8 school web site that has the word academics on their home page.) Once choice happens in high school, it’s too late. It becomes tracking and not choosing.
The educational and philosophical stranglehold of K-8 education has to be broken. Parents have to have control. If schools can’t even offer the simple choice of Singapore Math versus TERC, then school choice is the only reasonable solution. It’s no guarantee, because some private schools and charter schools stink too. That’s why high end standards and tests also have to be defined for K-8. They don’t provide a guarantee either, but parents would then have some hard numbers based on high end expectations to base their decision. Our schools are “High Performing” on the low cut-off state standards, but they still use Everyday Math and few kids are properly prepared for the AP calculus track in high school. Many think our schools provide an excellent education. It’s just excellent in getting most kids over the low cut-off, which is not too difficult in a high SES community.
The focus has to change from low cut-off scores to high end standards. The focus has to change from group statistics to individual educational opportunity. Parents have to be given real control and choice, not told to work on the times table with their kids at home.
I don’t have much faith that the government can define one strong curriculum for all.
Why not? If the government has defined airline procedures — a far more complex problem — then why can’t it happen for education, which isn’t rocket science.
If you have just
one curriculum, it will be weak,
Why would this have to be true?
Like NCLB,
NCLB is just an excuse to justify privatization of
education.
the minimum
becomes the maximum. The focus has to be on the
high end, not the low end.
Why not have something like A-level, B-level, and
so forth.
I know an American who lived in England (a long
time ago) and passed their A-level exams. He
said he hadn’t studied so hard before or since.
A national SET of standards doesn’t imply one single yardstick.
I would rather see the College Board define their
own, high level standards and tests for K-8,
designed to properly prepare kids (content and
skill-wise)
Fine, but why not make public schools follow?
NCLB and it’s not a return to the world of no
accountability.
In order to have accountability you need a uniform
way of measuring something. Meaning standardized
tests.
I’m a big proponent of unfettered charter schools
and choice.
I cannot for the life of me understand why so many
people are so obssessed with choice. I’ve met
many people from many countries that gave them
next to no choice in the education and they’re
fine.
My mother was educated in post war Poland when the
country was little more than rubble. There were
barely pots to piss in, let alone “choice”, and
yet my mother’s math skills are far better than
those of many of my students who grew up with
countless choices. And my mother is one of those
people who always hated math.
Parents have to be given control to
allow them to meet their own educational goals
right now.
Right. All parents — working two or three jobs
– have the wherewithall to evaluate math and
reading programs.
THe people who came out with Everyday Math and
other crap have a product to sell and will use
whatever Madison Avenue techniques to do it. You
expect parents to slog through all the obfuscation
and misdirection? Sure.
They cannot wait for slow, statistical
Another reason for failure. Impatience. If
previous generations were patient and methodical,
we wouldn’t be in this mess.
They could offer a choice of TERC and Singapore
Math.
Why should schools offer a choice of bad
programs????? Do you want your doctor to openly
give you a “choice” of a medication that was
proven ineffective or harmful?
Everyone is stuck with
all-kids-are-equal,
Typical ed-school thinking.
Math is math. The
English language is the English language.
Canada is located North of the US. None of these
things changes because of the uniqueness of a kid.
low
expectation, low academilcs curricula.
Of course. We’re all too busy trying to tailor
curriculum to the “needs” of every individual.
What are these “needs” supposed to be anyway?
If schools can’t even offer the simple choice
of Singapore Math versus TERC, then school choice
is the only reasonable solution.
No, it’s another mindless solution.
It’s no guarantee, because some private
schools and charter schools stink too.
Of course. Their administration was
indoctrinated in the same ed schools and they buy
into the same crap philosophies.
That’s why high end standards and tests also
have to be defined for K-8.
Finally, something I agree with.
but parents would then have some hard numbers
based on high end expectations to base their
decision.
Good grief. How ’bout using the numbers to shut down bad teaching philosophies? Project Follow Through gave us hard evidence for the ineffectiveness of various constructivist methods. That’s what number should be used for.
Actually, when it comes to how the content is taught, there are only a certain number of logically coherent, well-proven ways to do it. Teaching, if it is to be taken seriously as a profession, must develop these ways as its standard practice, much as doctors have standard practices for doing things.
Physics teacher, you and I are in absolute agreement that the American system of education schools is the big impediment towards doing this. I’ve said before, and I’ll say again, a marginally-proficient high school graduate has a better shot of being a good teacher *before* going to ed school than after.
Where communities need flexibility is how to implement good instruction. Trying to get good teachers into inner-city Oakland, for instance, would require a lot more pay and other incentives than would trying to get good teachers in a nice suburb like Mill Valley. Budgets, organizational structure, class sizes, and school culture are all best left at the local level based on community needs. Curriculum and how to teach it should become standard practice based on research and experience.
profession, must develop these ways as its
standard practice, much as doctors have standard
practices for doing things.
Of course. Unfortunately, I’ve come across people in teaching who believe that there are no standard practices in medicine (or engineering), believe it or not.
The ed-school mentality reminds me of an artist colony or a religious cult more than anything else.
Physics teacher, you and I are in absolute
agreement that the American system of education
schools is the big impediment towards doing this.
I’ve said before, and I’ll say again, a
marginally-proficient high school graduate has a
better shot of being a good teacher *before* going
to ed school than after.
Tell me about it. I never wasted so much money as I did taking ed courses. The only good to come out of it is the fact that it was an eye opener. I would never have thought that such stupidity could exist at a college environment.
Where communities need flexibility is how to
implement good instruction.
Of course, and I never argued against this. But this is a far cry from most of what I hear advocated.
to get good teachers into inner-city Oakland,
for instance, would require a lot more pay and
other incentives
I think in a situation like this better security and a “team-teaching” strategy would act as an incentive.
If you were to ask me what I would want as a teacher I would say “teaching assistant”. Someone to help out, part time or possibly fulltime, with copying, grading, discipline, etc. I’d be more than willing to share with colleagues. This would be a good start for people wishing to get into teaching (instead of taking virtual lobotomy education classes)
I think an idea like this would go a long way in some of our toughest schools. It’s funny that I never hear this idea tossed about. Schools will shell out millions for laptops (so kids end up playing games), but not this.
Budgets, organizational structure, class
sizes, and school culture are all best left at the
local level based on community needs. Curriculum
and how to teach it should become standard
practice based on research and experience.
Agreed.
PT, You really should read a whole comment and avoid an incremental shotgun response.
“Why not have something like A-level, B-level, and
so forth.”
OK, but how will the government make this happen, especially for K-8? What is the reality of trying to force this on schools and educators who even complain about very low NCLB standards? Our K-8 schools are built around full-inclusion. It drives everything, and it’s not in the direction of higher academic standards. It’s anti-A-level and anti-B-level by definition.
“Project Follow Through gave us hard evidence for the ineffectiveness of various constructivist methods. That’s what number should be used for.”
You have much more faith in the government and public schools than I do. How, exactly, will this happen? Project Follow Through hasn’t done the trick, and I don’t expect the National Mathematics Advisory Panel report will change fuzzy math thinking much in K-8. We probably would agree on what constitutes a quality education, but I’ve learned that consensus on this is nowhere as easy as defining airline procedures. On one hand, you decry the influence of ed school philosophy, but on the other hand, you think that the government can eliminate the problem by decree. Well, the government has already decreed low NCLB expectations. How do you change them to high expectations? How do you add levels when so many are anti-level? This is not just a disagreement over difficulty of tests. It’s a disagreement over basic assumptions.
Your position seems to be an odd combination of higher academic standards and support of the status quo.
“Abolish all local school districts, save 70 (50 states; 20 largest cities). Some states may choose to leave some of the rest as community service organizations, but they would have no direct involvement in the critical task of . . .selecting teachers.”
That central hiring should work real well in Montana, where our two furthese districts are 813 miles from each other (Alzada to Yaak.)
OK, but how will the government make this happen, especially for K-8? What is the reality of trying
How does anything happen? I think America’s education problems are far more solvable than other problems we face.
to force this on schools and educators who even complain about very low NCLB standards?
I don’t see many educators opposing standards. What I see opposed is who is held accountable.
If students are miseducated by crap like EveryDay Math, then EveryDay Math deserves to be eliminated and not the school or the teachers being held accountable.
Likewise, students will blow off exams that don’t “count”. These standardized tests need to be tied to consequences for students and not the school.
Our K-8 schools are built around full-inclusion. It drives everything, and it’s not in the direction of higher academic standards.
I agree. But why not call for reversing this instead of calling for eliminating public schools, privatization, home-schooling, and all the other far more radical solutions that are thrown about. If you think public education can’t be improved then what makes you think that you can just sweep it away entirely?
You have much more faith in the government and public schools than I do.
You have to trust someone sometime, don’t you? We’re not cowboys living on some prarie. If you boot government out, you invite far worse corruption. The government, at least in theory, answers to you. Corporations, even in theory, have only profit as their goal.
Thanks to public pressure Prohibition was enacted. Thanks to public pressure Prohibition was repealed. I don’t see any reason why we can’t fix public education.
I trust the FAA to get me safely to my destination. The mistake in public education was that we trusted the wrong people (ed schools) and not that we trusted someone (the government)
Project Follow Through hasn’t done the trick,
Because ed schools ignored the outcome. Like I said, ed schools are the enemy.
and I don’t expect the National Mathematics Advisory Panel report will change fuzzy math thinking much in K-8.
If your local police force was corrupt, what would you advocate?
1) Eliminating police altogether?
2) Choice (e.g., private police forces affordable
by the wealthy)
3) Cleaning up the current department (firing
corrupt leadership, more transparency, etc.)
as defining airline procedures.
I suspect that the average Joe could come up with something better than the average ed school.
On one hand, you decry the influence of ed school philosophy, but on the other hand, you think that the government can eliminate the problem by decree.
If witch doctors gave out medical licenses we’d be in trouble. But I don’t think it would be a difficult problem to solve.
Well, the government has already decreed low NCLB expectations.
I don’t consider NCLB to be any sort of attempt at improving education to begin with. I suspect that the motive for it is just to find excuses to close public schools and nothing more.
Your position seems to be an odd combination of higher academic standards and support of the status quo.
I dont’ see it that way at all
Why not? If the government has defined airline procedures — a far more complex problem — then why can’t it happen for education, which isn’t rocket science.
Because it’s pretty tough to explain away an airline crash as the fault of the passengers or to argue that it didn’t actually happen. Also, the professional have an extremely strong interest in a good outcome if they’re pilots, not so much if they’re teachers, even less so if they’re administrators. Finally, while education standards may not be rocket science the rocket scientists don’t have to contend with ideologically and politically-motivated nincompoops who have no responsibility in case the rocket goes “kaboom!”, fiddling with any aspect of the rocket that suits their fancy.
Why would this have to be true?
Because as a national standard every group with an ideological, political, pecuniary and legitimate interest is going to be jostling to be heard and since the setting of the standard will inevitably become a political process, they will be heard. Given the definition of a political compromise - that no one ends up happy - is there much reason to think that a national standard won’t end up as a national spectator sport?
NCLB is just an excuse to justify privatization of education.
Would that were true but it isn’t. It’s an attempt at national standards. You still think a national standard’s a good idea?
By the way, before you blandly assert again that NCLB is just an attempt to justify the privatization of public education you might want to check the Senate vote that passed NCLB. There are plenty of senators who voted for the bill who aren’t generally associated with the privatization of much of anything let alone public education. Why don’t you explain why Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton and more then a few other distinctly leftwingish Democrats found so compelling about NCLB?
A national SET of standards doesn’t imply one single yardstick.
Which is what NCLB is since all that it actually requires is that schools perform to the standards set by the state in which the school exists.
Fifty standards and look what it’s accomplished; ostensible adults, suddenly faced with having to live up to a standard they set themselves are inspired to heights of cleverness which result in the bright idea of changing those standards so they’re easier to meet. Quick, someone alert the Nobel Prize committee.
Fine, but why not make public schools follow?
Make? I’d rather have a situation in which schools don’t need to be flogged to try to meet the standards.
In order to have accountability you need a uniform way of measuring something. Meaning standardized tests.
Nope. All you need is for the customer to hold the hammer; to determine whether an organization’s offerings are acceptable and, if not, to put an end to the organization by avoiding their offerings.
I cannot for the life of me understand why so many people are so obssessed with choice.
Oh heck, that’s easy. You benefit from and are comfortable with the situation in which the customer, err, parent, has little to no choice. If the situations to your liking why on earth would anyone whose opinion you’d give any credence too want to change it?
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
The American public education is in the throes of substantive but they’re just beginning. The changes on the horizon’ll remake the public education system into something that’s not all that recognizable to us now and I’m even beginning to have some hope that there’ll be a Soviet Union-like collapse of the public education system in the not-too-distant future.
It can’t come fast enough to suit me.
Why don’t you explain why Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton and more then a few other distinctly leftwingish Democrats found so compelling about NCLB?
Apparently, because they didn’t devote much more thought to it than you did.
Why are “schools” held accountable when history has proven that snake oil like Whole Language has left countless illiterates in its wake?
How about the various fuzzy math programs? Why doesn’t the law target these?
How does removing funding from a school help education if the poison that made it sick is still out there?
If you see this as an attempt to improve education then I’ve got bridge to sell you.
You benefit from and are comfortable with the situation in which the customer, err, parent, has little to no choice.
Excuse me? I am a parent, and the situation doesn’t suit me or my child.
and I’m even beginning to have some hope that there’ll be a Soviet Union-like collapse of the public education system in the not-too-distant future.
It can’t come fast enough to suit me.
When the Dark Ages return — and that’s what we will have without public education — I’m sure you’ll do fine. Don’t forget to practice your “Bring out yer dead” chant.
Link? I do not remember this. Sounds unlikely to me
link: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/browse_thread/thread/a131ffb54b2b7c31/d53278db58681aab
(me): “If we applied the logic of education critics to the problems of aviation safety we’d have one group arguing that pilots should all have the “freedom” to choose cruising altitudes as the mood suits them and another group claiming that all we need is to allow passengers to choose the “best” airports”
(you):
That I don’t see. The State itself is a corporation. People do not become more intelligent, better-informed, or altruistic when they enter the State’s employ. Quite the opposite; guns attract thugs. Why suppose political processes will outperform markets in expressing the preferences of the population? People want to survive air travel and they want their children equipped to make their way through life. Corporations in a competitive market want to earn a profit and they don’t want to get sued.
“How does anything happen?”
OK, I’ll bite. How, exactly, do you use the National Math Advisory Panel report to get rid of Everyday Math? What, exactly, do you do to get schools to ensure that learning gets done? Heck. How do you make sure that kids entering fifth grade know their times table? Even if you drop Singapore Math into a school system, it won’t necessarily match their educational philosophy. Kids will still get to fifth grade without knowing their times table.
“If students are miseducated by crap like EveryDay Math, then EveryDay Math deserves to be eliminated and not the school or the teachers being held accountable.”
I don’t follow. My son’s school selected EM over the objections of many parents (at least they didn’t select TERC), but somehow, there is another force that will get it removed? In fact, all of the teachers were involved with the selection. This wasn’t crammed down their throats.
“Likewise, students will blow off exams that don’t “count”. These standardized tests need to be tied to consequences for students and not the school.”
First you say that students are miseducated, and then you say that the students are the ones to held accountable. There is a lot of accountability to spread around. In another thread I tried to find out exactly what schools expect from parents and kids. That way, we can focus on what we can expect from schools.
Choice is the only way I see that can force any real kind of change. It may not be perfect, but it’s better than wishful thinking. Consensus is not possible.
Steve,
Students will not do their best, or even try, if they don’t have to. So any test that they take will not “measure” anything unless they’re held responsible.
Students at my school, by the time they take what used to be called earth science, have already passed the necessary standardized tests in biology and chemistry. They could afford to flunk the third, and they did just that.
The geo teachers obtained permission to count the results of the standardized test toward their regular grade. Guess what? The performance on the ST improved dramatically. It was a miracle!
Notice that it didn’t take all that much.
Regarding choice: Here’s a simple thought experiment. Suppose we have two schools, the “good” one and the “bad” one, each with 1000 students. Maybe I’m misunderstanding something, but the choice advocates seem to imply that if parents could choose, the parents of all students could choose the “good” school, and all would be peachy. Exactly what is supposed to happen?
1) 2,000 students in the good school, and 0 in the bad? So, now the bad school will need to try harder to attract 1,000 students? What makes you think they weren’t trying their best already? What makes you think it wasn’t the population of the bad school that made it bad and now that population is in what used to be the good school? What if the bad school was the bad school because it was using crappy methods, but no one’s focusing on those and they just live to see another day elsewhere?
2) The “right” 1,000 students in the good school and the “wrong” 1,000 students in the bad? How does this change anything?
What makes you think that either of these scenarios wouldn’t result in political turmoil?
Doesn’t it make much more sense to apply successful teaching methods to both schools to begin with? Sure, there will be differences, but the overall performance should be better and we won’t be the laughing stock of the world as far as education goes. You suggest that this is too politically heated to work. What makes you think that choice won’t be a political storm if it was fully implemented?
(PT): “…I mentioned that the FAA is a government monopoly, and yet its employees safely deliver tens of thousands of flights safely each day. You insisted that some kind of “competion” between assorted corporations/entities would achieve the same, or better. You never specified how.”
(MK): “Link? I do not remember this. Sounds unlikely to me.”
(PT): “link: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/browse_thread/thread/a131ffb54b2b7c31/d53278db58681aab
(PT): “(Me)…’If we applied the logic of education critics to the problems of aviation safety we’d have one group arguing that pilots should all have the ‘freedom’ to choose cruising altitudes as the mood suits them and another group claiming that all we need is to allow passengers to choose the ‘best’ airports.’
(you): ‘That I don’t see. The State itself is a corporation. People do not become more intelligent, better-informed, or altruistic when they enter the State’s employ. Quite the opposite; guns attract thugs. Why suppose political processes will outperform markets in expressing the preferences of the population? People want to survive air travel and they want their children equipped to make their way through life. Corporations in a competitive market want to earn a profit and they don’t want to get sued.’ ”
Close but no cigar. a) I did not argue for the freedom of pilots to fly wherever they wanted “as the mood suits them”. I disputed the contention that that that result would ensue. b) Choosing airports has little to do with air-trraffic control. c) I mentioned lawsuits. Courts enforce industry standards. I don’t object to the FAA, I contend that the public benefits from common “rules of the road” and expect that these would evolve under State operation of the FAA or without State intrusion. What is the difference between a fine from the FAA and a financial award from a court? Same effect.
The analogy between the FAA and the education industry is bogus. The public does not gain from State-mandated standardized schooling.
(PT): “When the Dark Ages return — and that’s what we will have without public education…”
Do not confuse “public education” with “compulsory attendance at State (government, generally) operated schools”. In Hong Kong, Calculus is standard 11th grade Math. 90% of Hong Kong students take taxpayer subsidies to independent schools. The government of Singapore subsidizes parents’ choice of school. Singapore didn’t comel attendance at school until the early 1990s. The Singapore 5th (fifth) percentile score (1996 TIMSS 8th grade Math) is higher than the US 50th (fiftieth) percentile score.
Richard Arkwright was homeschooled. James Hargreaves and Thomas Highs were either homeschooled or minimally schooled. Cyrus McCormick was homeschooled. Thomas Edison was homeschooled. Benjamin Franklin attended school for two years, then apprenticed. Hiram Maxim left school at 13 and apprenticed. The Wright brothers were high school dropouts. Robert Fitzroy was homeschooled until age 12, attended the Admiralty school for 20 months, and went to sea at 14. David Farragut joined the Navy at 9, went to sea at 11, and commanded his first ship at 15.
In the US today, what we call “the public school system” has become a make-work program for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel, a source of padded contracts for politically-connected construction contractors and suppliers, and a venue for State-worshipful indoctrination.
Part of what has to happen for education to improve, whether by competition or command, is to blow away the cult of mush-brained fools who crafted the terrible methods. The NCTM and NSF, for starters, need to go. The ed schools need to follow them. They need to be replaced by a combination of content experts who can provide expertise about all the dependencies that exist in the curriculum and congnitive scientists and development experts to help craft a plan to deliver the curriculum in a way that the dependencies are met.
The order things are taught in and the methods by which they’re presented need to drive off the content. Constructivism and scaffolding, which don’t respect the structure of the content, have to recognized as educational malpractice. And that will take public pressure from college professors and employers who have to clean up the mess caused by this malpractice.
So long as education as a field doesn’t have an idea of what good practice and malpractice are, choice won’t improve it, neither will mandates. The two pronged approach needs to be a push for professional practice guidelines and local control. That way, communities can decide, on a city by city basis, what kind of school choice they’ll have. The state and the federal government just can’t do much to help here, and have already done a lot to hurt by enabling the mush-brained ed schools in the first place.
(PT): “What makes you think that choice won’t be a political storm if it was fully implemented?”
Choice defuses conflict. Imagine the glorious arguments we could have if Indian Hindus, Israeli Orthodox Jews, Saudi Muslims, and Chinese omnivores had to agree on a common diet.
Policies which give to individual parents the power to determine what, where and how their own children learn place control over education in the hands of people who know individual children best and are most reliably concerned for their welfare.
Richard Arkwright was homeschooled. James Hargreaves and Thomas Highs were either homeschooled or minimally schooled. Cyrus McCormick was homeschooled. Thomas Edison was homeschooled…
And this is what you regard as a general solution to what many regard as an educational crisis?
There were people who were well educated during the Dark Ages as well. But, in general, the population was poorly educated.
The fact that you may have a handful of well educated people among a population of illiterates doesn’t bode well for the future of a country. Today, we have people like Bill Gates campaigning for the legal right not to hire American citizens. The excuse he uses is the general level of education, and from that he implies that there are no Americans educated enough to work for him. People like you are handing him his dreams.
No industry can thrive in an region where most people are idiots but here and there we find a self-made Ben Franklin.
Choice defuses conflict. Imagine the glorious arguments we could have if Indian Hindus, Israeli Orthodox Jews, Saudi Muslims, and Chinese omnivores had to agree on a common diet
ROTFLMAO
What happens when Macy’s has a sale on “cute shoes” and everyone has the “choice” of buying the cutest of the cute shoes? What if the cute shoes are a limited resource?
As someone who’s worked in retail, “defuses conflict” is very optimistic.
“Doesn’t it make much more sense to apply successful teaching methods to both schools to begin with?”
How, exactly, does this happen? I might agree with you, but you haven’t explained any details.
“What makes you think they weren’t trying their best already?”
Because 1000 kids left. Parents are not completely stupid. Besides, it’s not just about trying hard. My son’s school tries really hard, but they still use Everyday Math.
“What makes you think that choice won’t be a political storm if it was fully implemented?”
It’s already a storm. Our state had a moratorium on charter schools, and the educational establishment has veto power over all new charters. They don’t want to see any charter school that sets high academic standards. Any real change will create a storm; choice or not.
I mentioned before that one path for change without school choice is if a school system provides the choice itself, say between TERC and Singapore Math. It would be an interim step to prove to everyone that one is better than the other. This could be a process that would lead to better curricula and methods, but I won’t hold my breath. There are indications, however, that charter school choice forces regular public schools to work harder.
You talk about how increased pressure on grades cause students to work harder. We need the same thing for schools. Choice is a way to provide that force. What do you offer as the driving force for good curricula and proper teaching?
How, exactly, does this happen? I might agree with you, but you haven’t explained any details.
I don’t have details. As an insider (who used to be an outsider) I’m stating what I see wrong, and I’m reacting to the outsiders (lots of pundits) who give us solutions in newspapers nearly everyday.
Most of my colleagues see things the way I see them. Most of the general public seems to as well when I tell them the whole story. This is why I think that concensus on education is far more possible than you think it is.
I’m just a teacher writing a somewhat informed opinion in a public forum hoping to catch the ear(s) of those with more charisma than me.
Because 1000 kids left. Parents are not completely stupid. Besides, it’s not just about trying hard. My son’s school tries really hard, but they still use Everyday Math
I never said that parents were stupid. Most “outsiders” assume that we have far more autonomy than we really do. A colleague of mine got scolded for using big words. Another for not playing games with the kids. Another for demanding that students label physical quantities with units. But teachers get the blame for dumbing down.
Running with my example, if you believe that you could cram 2,000 students into a 1,000 student school, why is it that you think that the school can’t be forced to abandon EM?
Any real change will create a storm; choice or not.
So why not push for changes that are substantial?
I mentioned before that one path for change without school choice is if a school system provides the choice itself, say between TERC and Singapore Math.
OK, but this should be part of a controlled experiment and not a choice in perpetuity. If, and when, EM results in lower test scores (and remedial math students in college) it should be buried forever and its name never spoken in polite company again.
Quincy wrote:
So long as education as a field doesn’t have an idea of what good practice and malpractice are, choice won’t improve it
Thank you. Well put.
The choice crowd assumes that the educational establishment knows how to teach (or, rather, how to tell teachers to teach), but that they’re lazy and they need a little competition to get them going. It’s like assuming that quadraplegics will run fast if you stage a race.
Apparently, because they didn’t devote much more thought to it than you did.
Save the juvenile insults for the juveniles or if you don’t have a response to the not-from-eduWonkette revelation then just man up and admit it.
Since you obviously have no substantive reply to make on the subject let’s just assume you’ve never given the slightest thought to the possibility that NCLB could be anything other then a dark plot by sinister forces and that’s about as deep as your curiosity has led you.
Why are “schools” held accountable when history has proven that snake oil like Whole Language has left countless illiterates in its wake?
I don’t know what the quotes are for but the notion that the public education system isn’t responsible for the substitution of edu-crap(tm) for worthwhile instructional techniques sort of leaves the question up in the air of who could conceivably be responsible.
How does removing funding from a school help education if the poison that made it sick is still out there?
By making it an organizational capital offense to fall in love with edu-crap(tm).
If schools that do a lousy job suffer for doing a lousy job there are going to be fewer schools doing a lousy job. If schools that do a lousy enough job cease to exist then the professionals who depend on schools for their livelihood are liable to be somewhat more forceful in rejecting the imposition of edu-crap(tm) by love-smitten administrators.
If you see this as an attempt to improve education then I’ve got bridge to sell you.
See, this is why comedy should be left to the professionals.
Excuse me? I am a parent, and the situation doesn’t suit me or my child.
So if you had some choices that would result in a better educational situation for your child you wouldn’t opt for those choices?
When the Dark Ages return — and that’s what we will have without public education — I’m sure you’ll do fine.
Wasn’t that the premise of “Mad Max”?
I doubt “nationalizing” school districts would change the politics of education for the “20″, they already have those problems in spades. The impact would be seen in the smaller or more homogeneous districts that aren’t representative samples of the whole. I think Gerstner already suggested that there be a choice for states to opt out. I see no reason why this couldn’t be done at the district level and not at the state level. That way the districts with high benefit and low cost could join in and the others could do what they wanted.
Allen,
Maybe you’re right to talk about teachers as if they’re largely contemptible, complacent slackers who care only about job security, and that the only way to get them to teach well is to expose them to the insecurities of the free market. But the teachers at my school (myself excepted) work at a positively frantic pace, are for the most part embarrassed to be part of the union, will do anything extra the administration asks them… Yet the test results remain mediocre. It seems to me that in THIS school at least, all that’s needed is a removal of the “snake oil” philosophies, as Physics Teacher calls them. Give ‘em a sound educational program, and this staff would implement it with gusto.
I rather suspect that more schools are like mine than not; that most teachers actually work quite hard and really want to do a good job. And that the reason results remain disappointing is that most of them have been given the ed school snake oil.
A comment was made about teachers supposedly choosing EveryDay Math.
A local school district decided to implement ED, ov